Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Terri Schiavo case. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

NCdave is a troll

Since NCdave drowned this section I've moved the relevant Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave rfc link posted by MikeH below. Professor Ninja 21:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) Additionally: 69.134.182.251 is, according to the edits in the history section, NCdave's IP. Has any vandalism ever occured from this IP or from a similar IP? I find it very curious that he was logged in as NCdave, then as an IP 13 minutes later, then back as NCdave 31 minutes after his last IP edit. It doesn't imply anything outright, but it is curious, and given his trolling I wouldn't put it past him using an IP to agitate and accidentally revealing himself in this fashion. Professor Ninja 22:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Professor Ninja's question pulled from archive 18

[In] all serious, has dave pushed it so far by now that we can just pretty much consider all his edits vandalism? Professor Ninja 12:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. This revision tells us all we need to know. I suggest everything NCdave edits to the actual article be reverted as trolling and possibly even his edits here. His recent attempts [1] [2] to denigrate other users who don't favor his opinion is more reason for KOS. →Vik Reykja 09:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those three links, Vikreykja. They are, indeed, illustrative of what's going on here.

The first link (which you say "tells us all we need to know") is a correction that I made to my own previous comment, which I had made two minutes earlier. I first said that in 1992 Terri's "family and Michael ran out of money to pay for" her therapy. But I realized that wasn't really correct. The Schindlers had been paying for her therapy, not Michael. In fact, Michael (who at the time had no job) was being supported by the Schindlers. So I corrected my previous comment to say, "her family had run out of money to pay for it."

Pray tell how correcting my own comment to make it more precisely accurate constitues being a "troll," Vikreykja?

The second link shows where I added an a note indicating who had written the previous paragraph, which was this[3] unsigned attack on me and on all "conservative Christians," in which FuelWagon wrote:

"What are you, an absolute mindless machine? CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT doesn't evoke any sort of possible BIAS against purely scientific and medical diagnosis?... blindly obediant robot... Take the red freaking pill and for once in your otherwise automaton life, THINK."

That was FuelWagon's way of arguing that a highly credentialed neurologist who is also a practicing Episcopalian is, because of his conservative Christian faith, unable to make an unbiased medical judgment about whether a patient is vegetative or conscious. As your link shows, Vikreykja, I refrained from responding in kind, but simply posted the correct attribution of those words, in which I said, "BTW, that unsigned outburst was contributed by FuelWagon. NCdave 04:48, 12 Apr 2005"

Listen you little punk, I never waged an "attack on all conservative Christians". You are putting more words in my mouth. I said Cheshire's diagnosis of Terri should also mention that he "writes papers on stem cell reseach and other issues espousing a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT". They're NOT EVEN MY WORDS, I was QUOTING FROM A NEWSPAPER. So, unless you're saying the newspaper is attacking all conservative christians, then we simply have more of you twisting what I said into what you want it to mean. The only one I'm attacking there is YOU, because you think Chesire is unbiased. And I have no problem attacking someone who wants to remove someone's bias in an attempt to present their diagnosis as more neutral. Nor do I have a problem attacking someone who keeps twisting my words around and misrepresenting what I said. Cheshire is biased and that needs to be mentioned in the article alongside his diagnosis. And you're a punk for taking that and turning it into an attack on all christianity. FuelWagon 16:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I quoted you accurately, FuelWagon. You said that a highly credentialed neurologist could not make an unbiased medical and scientific judgment solely because he is a conservative Christian. That means that you believe that conservative Christians cannot make unbiased medical and scientific judgments, simply because they are conservative Christians. That is an attack on everyone who shares his Faith. NCdave 19:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're an idiot. If you "quoted me accurately", then you QUOTED A NEWSPAPER because that's where that text came from, you moron. And therefore whatever interpretation you try to put on my words, you're actually attributing to a NEWSPAPER. So, you're saying a newspaper is mounting an attack on all christians and trashing an entire religion. FuelWagon 19:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The debated text is in the Terri Schiavo wikipedia entry right now. Right next to the text is a link to an article in the Kansas City Star. To quote the newspaper article: "Cheshire, also trained in bioethics, graduated from and is an adjunct professor at Trinity University, and has written opinion articles on stem-cell research and other scientific debates espousing a conservative Christian viewpoint." That's what got put into the Terri Schiavo article in wikipedia. It's quoting from the Kansas City Star newspaper. That's where the text "attacking all christians and trashing an entire religion" came from, you idiot. Did you ever follow the link like I told you? You f**king moron. So, YOU'RE NOT QUOTING ME, YOU'RE ATTACKING ME FOR WORDS I QUOTED FROM A NEWSPAPER. Write the Kansas City Star and attack them. FuelWagon 19:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And because I'm not certain you can even find the right link, I'm including it here for your benefit [4] FuelWagon 20:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And here is the text that I put in the wikipedia article: "Cheshire sees patients at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville and teaches at Trinity International University, a Christian institution. Cheshire has written opinion articles on stem-cell research and other scientific debates espousing a conservative Christian viewpoint." The only difference was I combined another sentence from the article that says he sees patients at the Mayo Clinic, which I thought was also relevent. If you had actually read the article, you would have seen that, instead of attacking me for quoting a newspaper. FuelWagon 20:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether I'm a punk, idiot, moron, mindless automaton, or whatever else FuelWagon may call me, I did not misquote him, and (as he well knows) I didn't attack him for quoting a newspaper. These are the words I quoted, not from any newspaper, but written by FuelWagon, right here on the Talk:Terri_Schiavo page:

"What are you, an absolute mindless machine? CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT doesn't evoke any sort of possible BIAS against purely scientific and medical diagnosis?... blindly obediant robot... Take the red freaking pill and for once in your otherwise automaton life, THINK."

Here's the link: [5]. FuelWagon didn't sign it, but the diff link shows who posted it (look at the top of the righthand panel). NCdave 21:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cheshire's background is relevant to his medical opinion, as noted in the newspaper article. I quoted the newspaper's words when I wrote that section about Cheshire in the article. No attack there (text is already above, go read it.) The rest of my post on the talk page was an attack on YOU and your moronic fight against anything that doesn't agree with your conspiracy theories. You are the blindly obediant robot, NCdave, following whatever programming you picked up that has you insist Michael murdered Terri is indisputable fact. You like to paraphrase, and you conveniently dropped the part that clarifies who I'm speaking to. Paraphrasing with a little more context, I said: "If YOU had taken 2 seconds to click on the link, rather than (YOU) be the blindly obediant robot." And at the end I tell YOU to take the red freaking pill and think. I don't have a problem with Christianity and you shouldn't make assumptions about my religious beliefs. I do have a problem with you putting words in my mouth and telling the world that I'm attacking all Christianity, when in fact, I'm calling you an idiot. Rather than paraphrase out the convenient bits that show my innocence, why don't I just quote the whole thing for you:

What are you, an absolute mindless machine? CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT doesn't evoke any sort of possible BIAS against purely scientific and medical diagnosis? NONE WHATSOEVER? That comment, by the way, IS A QUOTE FROM THE MAGAZINE ARTICLE, if you had actually taken two seconds to click on the link and follow it, rather than be the blindly obediant robot. The fact that he is christian, went to a christian school and teaches at a christian school, isn't relevant except that it supports the assertion that he writes articles espousing a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT . And that he espouses a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT on stem cell research and other scientific debates DOES indicate that HE IS BIASED. Take the red freaking pill and for once in your otherwise automaton life, THINK.

Oh, and you keep harping on the fact that my post was unsigned. That wasn't intentional, I just forgot. I don't have any problem signing my name to the fact that I think you're a complete f**king moron. You've put words in my mouth before this. I told you to knock it off, and your reply was "<shiver>". Well, this time around I didn't have any bones about telling you what I thought of you. I still don't.

While I'm on the subject, you remember the time I misquoted Iyer's affadavit and the bit about the "police relative" when it was really "police in relation to". I admitted straight up that I made a mistake. Have you yet admitted that you totally f**ked up in telling the world that I launched a full out attack on all christians and attempted to trash their entire religion? No, instead, you keep trying to paraphrase my words and twist their meanings. You screwed up this one big time, and you're too much a coward to admit it. FuelWagon 21:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NCdave never concedes. If you look at his edit history he makes all sorts of repairs to his slapdash edits and typos, but will harp on people for "police relative" or "pearson" instead of "pearse". He's a pedantic little kid. Go post it on the request for comment page, you'll see refusing to concede points is a violation (albeit a minor one). He's already failed to concede the Hammesfahr argument when he hammered off an email to the good Doctor and claimed the reply he got was "proof" that took me about thirty seconds to refute. He just ran away. He constantly misquotes people. When I said something, he said "Professor Ninja is correct..." and when I said no, in fact, I never said that, despite having my name in his previous post he claimed he was quoting from a news report or some such. It's just more of his trolling that belongs on the rfc. Professor Ninja 01:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm turning blue here. Do you think I should keep holding my breath waiting for a retraction? Does NCdave stand by his accusations that I attacked all of christianity and trashed an entire religion by quoting a newspaper? Am I waiting for Godot? Hm, perhaps the mole has popped down his hole now that he has been defeated and intends to pop back up in a completely different location, as if this conversation never happened. Seems like a familiar pattern. Well, at least I don't have to put quarters in THIS game of whack a mole to play it. FuelWagon 05:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, NCdave edit the discussion page [6] since I said I was turning blue. That edit was several hours ago. No mention since then as to whether my taking a quote from a newspaper actually constitutes an attack on all Chritianity and trashes an entire religion or not. I can only assume he stands by those accusations. Am I missing a retraction he posted on another page? FuelWagon 15:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know your religion, FuelWagon, but let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are of the Jewish Faith. If I were to assert that the professional judgements you reach in your chosen profession must be biased, because you are Jewish, then wouldn't you say that was a prejudiced statement, and wouldn't you be offended by it? NCdave 19:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a combination of religion and politics that makes it inherently biased, and you know it dave. The conclusion a conservative christian will come to will inherently be in line with those beliefs. Your analogy is false, you assert that somebody is of the Jewish faith but make no qualifiers. If somebody is Jewish, AND they're a devout Jew, and we know about Judaic teachings, then it is safe to assume that when he releases a report on why circumcision is better than non-circumcision, it may very well be because his devout Jewish faith has influenced his outlook. On top of which, FuelWagon asserted that a conservative Christian would have a viewpoint. The conservative part is important. It's fuel to the fire, essentially, and you know that. You've repeatedly asserted that liberals/atheists are inherently POV (I'll provide links and references, as always with you and I will be adding this to the rfc page as evidence) and yet deny that the exact opposite could thereby be pov. Your bullshit works both ways. Professor Ninja 01:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The third link has three comments from me, all to and about new user Tropix. One was a reply to Tropix, correcting a detail about the chronology of the Schiavo case (her therapy ceased in 1992, not 1994). The next was also a reply to Tropix, this time about FuelWagon's attacks on Tropix as ("possible sockpuppet" and by calling Tropix's contributions "crap"), in which I linked to a diff showing FuelWagon's attack on "conservative Christians," to show Tropix the kind of vitriol that he could expect from FuelWagon should FuelWagon come to believe that Tropix is a Christian. The third comment was my statment that "I am not Tropix." NCdave 16:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now, pray tell, Vikrekja, why do you think that when FuelWagon trashes an entire religion, and engages in blatant name-calling and personal attacks on other WikiPedians, you get mad at the target of his abuse?

"Trashes an entire religion" Listen, jerk, I never trashed anyone but you because you can't seem to see any bias in Cheshire's background. The same way I trashed you for quoting Dr. Boyle endlessly as if he were a neutral source, even after I pointed out his comment on his blog that "all Democrats are out to murder Terri". No bias there. No bias with Cheshire, either. You're a moron. You pick the diagnosis you want, ignore any possible bias in their opinions, and present it as fact. When I point out individual bias, I'm "trashing an entire religion". You are clueless about what NPOV means. And you're a punk for twisting my words to demonize me into someone who would "trash an entire religion". FuelWagon 16:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, those are not Dr. Boyle's words, that's FuelWagon's paraphrase of Dr. Boyle's words, and FuelWagon added the word "all."

Dr. Boyle was commenting on a March 21 NPR report that he summarized like this, "As stated by NPR this A.M.: Democrats are coming down hard on the side of pulling Terri Schiavo's feeding tube." Boyle then asked the obvious question, "Why are the Democrats so hell bent on killing Terri Schiavo?"

You can read Boyle's article here. NCdave 20:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow. That changes everything. (sarcasm) FuelWagon 21:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't even bother, FuelWagon. He's compared other users to holocaust deniers. Professor Ninja 21:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please tell me, Vikrekja, what is "KOS?" NCdave 16:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kill On Sight. In other words, revert without even reading. I will not be baited into replying to your other comments so don't expect one. →Vik Reykja 18:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm surprised no one's filed an RFC against him. Mike H 10:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I now have. If you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, please sign that you certify the basis for the dispute. If you did not have an active role, but still agree with the description, sign under "other users who endorse this summary." Mike H 11:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps next time you should take the time to inform a user on their discussion page (not that I don't disagree with the filing of an RFC in this case) - this just gives them less to complain about subsequqntly. Proto 11:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was going to; I had just become sidetracked. Mike H 11:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Just a question, isn't it abnormal to edit an archived page? I don't get this at all, he goes into Archive 16 and edits it after its creation. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the archive? Isn't he, in fact, using the archive to make it appear as if nobody's responding to his "well reasoned" argument, or am I getting overly paranoid about him? Professor Ninja 18:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

When someone "archives" an active discussion, just hours after the last contribution to it, does that mean that the discussion must end? Is that some sort of Wikipedia rule that I overlooked?

How about if the person who archives the discussion first prunes from it the comments with which he disagrees? Is that kosher?

Here's an illustrative excerpt from Archive17:

NCdave, my rundown of Iyer's affadavit has been archived here [7]. -FuelWagon

Minus my comment at the end of it, of course. NCdave 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you blame me for restoring to the archive the comment which I had already added before it was archived? NCdave 16:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed not normal to do such a thing. Only put it under evidence if he's the only one who has done this. Mike H 21:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have 13 edits by NCdave across 4 archives [8] [9] [10] [11]. However, other users have also edited the archives, but not particularly to the extent NCdave has. Only six other users (mostly red links) seem to have made singular edits across the 18 archives. All others seem to be from IPs or NCdave. I dunno, it seems like evidence, but circumstantial.

Above was mine. Addendum: a removal from the archived page of criticisms of NCdave originating from 210.23.187.247 - other edits from 210.23.187.247 Only other edit to archive 13 by StuartGathman seems NCdave POV enforcement. edits to archive 1 first edit constitutes vandalism as does the second edit a response to the first vandalism and a third instance of vandalism. the only edit to archive 2 is a response to NCdave's Hammesfahr assertions, it is also Ncbill's first contribution ever and thus may have been a simple mistake. the sole edit to archive 7 is NCdave-style POV enforcement from IP 68.94.203.222 only other edit from this IP include vandalism to the Terri Schiavo article. Only edit to archive 10 is from Iceberg3k responding to NCdave. Edits in archive 11 [12] [13] [14] consitute vandalism and two responses to NCdave [15] [16] from 203.32.94.32, as well as two responses from Vt-aoe [17] [18] (from Vt-aoe's second link it seems he was making a good faith, though misguided attempt to bring the archives into wikipedia-friendly format.

That is literally all the edits to the archived page. So out of 29 edits to the archives, NCdave has made 13, while only 5 of the 29 edits were made in any sort of good faith; two of those times to respond to NCdave, three times to respond in a fashion of wikipedia tutorial (style guides, language, citations), one of which made in response to vandalism. So. Does that constitute evidence, or what? Professor Ninja 22:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

NCdave's latest sneaky vandalism attempt

I really don't feel like getting tagged for 3RR, but this undoubtedly is vandalism. In his latest edit [19] NCdave advances the following: Michael Schiavo claims that the Schindlers had no objection to his appointment as guardian, but the Schindlers claim that they were not notified of the proceedings.[20] with the edit summary "Rehabilitation efforts - guardianship appointment - Schindlers' consent is disputed". The original edit said nothing about their consent, only about lack of objection. If one goes to http://www.zimp.org/stuff/02-michael_schiavo_appointed_terri.htm, you will find "On June 18, 1990, after a conducted investigation declaring Terri incapacitated, a hearing was held in a St. Petersburg courtroom appointing Michael Schiavo as Terri’s legal guardian. The St. Petersburg court files state that Terri’s parents were notified by mail of these events, including the hearing, and had no objections to Michael Schiavo being appointed Terri’s guardian. Terri’s parents emphatically state that they did not know of the investigation concluding that Terri was incapacitated, or the subsequent court hearing and were never notified. Additionally, there is no evidence of any documentation in Terri's legal case files verifying that Terri’s parents supported Michael Schiavo's guardianship appointment, other than a reference that Terri's parents were in agreement. In is important to note, during this 1990 time frame, Terri’s parents were in daily contact with Michael Schiavo, and nothing was ever mentioned regarding these court proceedings by Michael Schiavo or his attorney."

That is incomplete. The rest of the page says:

The entire legal Guardianship transaction was handled by attorney Daniel Grieco.

This information has been archived in the court’s microfiche files, but was only recently discovered, in June 2004, by Terri’s family.

NCdave 02:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is speculative and not germane to the issue. I could provide counterpoints, but why bother? Professor Ninja 03:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. The court records show they had no objection, and there is a note in the court file that they are in agreement. Furthermore, they were in daily contact with Michael, still on a friendly basis, and before any possible shadow of any money from a malpractice suit ever came up that could have maybe slightly thrown his guardianship in question, on top of which he is her de facto next of kin by marriage... and there's a controversy how? If this isn't the definition of sneaky vandalism attempting to add misinformation to the article, I quite literally do not know what is. Professor Ninja 01:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's plain English: "Terri’s parents emphatically state that they did not know of the investigation concluding that Terri was incapacitated, or the subsequent court hearing and were never notified." But the Wikipedia article states Michael Schiavo's POV as uncontested fact, even though it is actually a matter of dispute.

You don't believe the Schindlers, Professor Ninja, but that's just your POV. To state, as if it were undisputed fact, that the Schindlers were notified, when they say that they were not, is POV bias.

Note that there is no record that the Schindlers were even at the hearing. Now how likely is it that they wouldn't even bother to show up at their daughter's guardianship hearing, if they knew about it??

But even if that doesn't seem preposterous, consider this. What the page I referenced page doesn't mention is that attorney Daniel Grieco was working for Michael Schiavo, and, in fact, handled Michael's malpractice case for him. So the entire guardianship matter was handled by Michael's attorney, and the Schindlers weren't there, and there is no evidence that they wrote a document stating that they concurred, so where do you suppose the information came from that the Schindlers had no objection? There's only one possibility: it came from Michael and his attorney.

But what about the mailed notifications that were supposedly sent by the court to the Schindlers? How could they have not received them? Well, at the time Michael Schiavo was living with the Schindlers, so it is pretty easy to see how the notifications could have gone astray.

But the bottom line is that for the article to state Michael Schiavo's contention as if it were undisputed fact, when actually the Schindlers dispute it, is POV bias. I carefully wrote a NPOV sentence which stated both sides without any suggestion of which side I think is more likely true, and included a link to document the fact of the dispute:

"Michael Schiavo claims that the Schindlers had no objection to his appointment as guardian, but the Schindlers claim that they were not notified of the proceedings.[21]"

Here's the diff link: [22]

But Ninja just reverted it to the POV-biased version:

"...without objection from the Schindlers."

(And, as usual, threw in a few insults.) NCdave 02:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is what I mean by misinformation. The article states clearly there was no objection. If somebody does not object to something it does not mean that they actively support it. If they received the mail and did not write back, that is no objection. If they received the mail and wrote back that they objected, that is an objection. If they received the mail and wrote back that they support it, that is consent. If they never received the mail, that is still no objection. Your comments like "There's only one possibility: it came from Michael and his attorney" & "attorney Daniel Grieco was working for Michael Schiavo, and, in fact, handled Michael's malpractice case for him" & "How could they have not received them? Well, at the time Michael Schiavo was living with the Schindlers, so it is pretty easy to see how the notifications could have gone astray" is classic NCdave. 1) There is another possibility; they are keeping in line with their statement about doing anything to keep their daughter alive, including lying that they ever received it. 2) So Michael Schiavo hatched his plot in 1990, 2 years before the malpractice suit? Your conspiracy theories keep getting longer. 3) Or they may have received them and then lied about it. "You don't believe the Schindlers, Professor Ninja, but that's just your POV. To state, as if it were undisputed fact, that the Schindlers were notified, when they say that they were not, is POV bias." Uh, no. I never said I didn't believe the Schindlers. I never said I believed Michael Schiavo in this instance. What I did say was that your edit was sneaky vandalism, ie: attempting to inject misinformation into the article. I said that there was multiple possibilities. I said it struck me as incredible. Not impossible, but incredible. You could well be right, Michael Schiavo might be Satan himself and be involved in the longest and most elaborate Machiavellian conspiracy ever perpetrated to cruelly torture Terri. However, attempting to inject speculation vs. fact in a way to enforce your POV on the page, and trying to claim that "no objection" means "explicit consent" is, and by God I mean this with all my heart, sneaky vandalism, and I also suspect a way to bait other editors into giving you what you want with threats. Professor Ninja 02:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: There were exactly zero insults in my post, contrary to the invented statement "as usual, threw in a few insults." If you want to see some hefty examples of grievous insults, you can go ahead and check here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NCdave Professor Ninja 04:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Can you find a link from a less POV website? JYolkowski 02:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to this link http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf and note that this is the initial court hearing about discontinuing Terri Shaivo's life support. The document is dated February 11, 2000. Note also that in attendance (there in the court-room) were Michael Shaivo, George Felos, Esq., Constance Felos, Esq., Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, and Pamela A.M. Campbell, Esq. Since the Shindler's were in attendance it's moot whether or not they were notified of the proceedings since they were there at the proceedings. Wjbean 12:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Professor Ninja's 3RR violation

I'll tell you what, Professor Ninja. I won't file a 3RR complaint if you'll leave the "neutrality is disputed" and "accuracy is disputed" tags on the article. After all, you might not agree with the disputes, but you know that the accuracy and neutrality are disputed. Okay? NCdave 02:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You put in enough vandalism until you get 3 Reverts on the professor and then blackmail him? Duly noted on RFC page. FuelWagon 04:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, not okay. Go ahead and file the 3RR violation. I believe you committed what is referred to as sneaky vandalism. I believe you're also trying to bait people into giving you your way by making edits to get 3RR violations filed against people. I will defend that and comment as such. Professor Ninja 02:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Section 4--Malpractice Suit

In furtherance of compromise and clarity, I'd like to suggest the following for the summary of the medmal case:

In 1992, Michael Schiavo, on behalf of Terri Schiavo and himself, brought a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had treated Terri Schiavo for infertility, claiming that the doctor's failure to diagnose Terri Schiavo's eating disorder caused her current condition. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that Terri Schiavo was bulimic and that the obstetrician's failure to diagnose this condition caused her hypokalemia and subsequent cardiac arrest. While up on appeal, the case settled in January 1993 and provided that Terri Schiavo receive $750,000 (economic damages) and Michael Schiavo receive $300,000 (loss of consortium). The court placed Terri Schiavo's award in a trust fund, which was controlled by a third party and covered her medical and legal expenses.

In fact the amounts where $700,000 (not $750,000) and $300,000 respectively. Terri's amount was for damages and Michael's amount was "for loss of consortium." re: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf fourth paragraph of page two. Wjbean 12:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Realistically, this is just a restatement of the already existing paragraph; for accuracy, the actual case is necessary to state the claims (but I haven't seen any links to this case's court record, decisions, whatnot, so I worked with what was there). I shortened the reference to the appeal b/c it was moot and confusing (an appeal is almost standard practice, and when something is pending appeal it is a good time to reach a settlement, which obviously happened in this case). I removed the line about the 2d DCA's findings--it's extremely confusing b/c if there was no appellate review b/c of the settlement, how could the 2d DCA continue to review the case and reach a conclusion. This makes me think that the 2d DCA's decision is related to the probate case somehow, not this medmal case. Anyway, I found it confusing and it lacked a citation, so I would prefer to take it out. (Also, reaffirmation of a jury's finding of fact is reassuring, but not necessary for this paragraph. It could, of course, come in under a controversy section later in the article, as I recall the Schindlers didn't agree with this finding.)--Mia-Cle 01:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please check reference links

Please take the time to check the links other users add. One user, long ago, in the history of diffs, added a patterico.com criticism of the Zogby poll that was actually a criticism of the other news polls. I suspect it was done under the assumption that people going to that link would read the michelle malkin malkin stuff, and then they could claim NPOV because a few of the users fired back with very, very curt criticisms in the comments section. I moved it to a general section for now, but please check what other editors do. I'm borderline to assuming bad faith on every edit here, and I don't really want that. Professor Ninja 19:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Added link in Information Site section to a free living will site which is categorized state by state. Wjbean 12:38, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

John H. Pecarek report, link?

Do we have a link to John H. Pecarek's report? it's mentioned about 4 times in the article, but I can't find a link to read the original text. FuelWagon 22:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Pecarek report isn't available online, unfortunately. I'll try to find a solution. Professor Ninja 22:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

To Tropix

I've changed some of your edits; they were for the most part good, and fixed at least one instance of laziness on my part. However I've returned the sentence to "On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage from cerebral hypoxia caused by cardiac arrest" for stylistic reasons. I think it's much more important to note the major important first, then the precipitating causes. My previous edit was just lazy, I was doing it half-assed in tandem with creating the cerebral hypoxia stub, and thank you for fixing that. Terri Schiavo is encyclopaedia worthy because of her case, her case stems from the brain damage. The cerebral hypoxia and cardiac arrest were tandem (a handy word for me, apparently) events that caused it. As one might say of a man from the house of commons who has died in a car accident, "The Hon. John Smith was killed in a motor vehicle collision" -- effect precipitates cause because it is the effect that is important. Terri Schiavo would not be nearly this big if she suffered a cardiac arrest and cerebral hypoxia, got up, and was fine.

Additionally I've returned the Second District's characterization of the evidence to what it was before. The disction is important. Your edit merely stated something about the second disctrict's affirmation that didn't help characterize the ruling. Similar to the landmark date you cite, this is indeed a landmark in appellate process; it's a rare enough occurence that it's worth mentioning in full. Professor Ninja 00:44, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence, I think that is a matter of style. I usually prefer to lay out a chronology, rather than have the reader discover at the end of the sentence what happened first. I prefer my wording also because putting the cardiac arrest at the end kind of makes it a side issue. A heart attack isn't a side issue to most people. You have a good point above, and your current wording is accurate and OK with me.

Regarding the courts issue, I sniff a POV in the breeze. The "..not only..", "..but said.." are pushy words. You wouldn't like them if someone else were to use them in certain other places in this article. They promote an agenda. And they use space. Better to eliminate those words and stay with the fact, then there is no issue and we are closer to NPOV. I get suspicious when I encounter words like that in any narration.

I still think that the two sentences regarding appeals are excessive, unless the entire intro is expanded in balance. If you think the Second District opinion is a landmark, then leave that in place and delete the preceding sentence. Then the paragraph is not lengthened by redundancy. Consider too that your, or my, opinions of which events are milestones in this history may not be universal. They will not all fit in the intro.

Tropix 01:28, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

It's not intended to be POV; if anything "This decision was affirmed on appeal by 19 separate judges. The Second District Court of Appeal not only affirmed the decision of the trial court, but said had it reviewed the evidence, it would have reached the same finding." makes it sound like the opposite POV you're implying. It makes it sound like they didn't bother looking at the evidence at all (this isn't what it means in this case.) I included this after a discussion above with Patsw and FuelWagon. The "...not only... but said..." isn't pushy, considering: 1) Not only is the shortest way I can find to state that they went above the normal actions of an appellate, and 2) but is the word to use when one is going contrary to expectations; expectations in this case of appeals is to not review the finding of evidence, but to review the finding of judgment and whether or not it was arrived at properly and in accordance with the evidence. In this case the action of the Second District, in context of the other 19 judges, is extraordinary; it is worth noting it as such. However, I'll remove it for now until consensus is achieved. Professor Ninja 02:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Second District Court of Appeal not only affirmed the decision of the trial court, but said had it reviewed the evidence, it would have reached the same finding. now exists here only for posterity. It may actually belong somewhere else in the article. I also removed the "ten years later" bit you added, given that the two dates are listed about a line apart. I would assume that if a person is literate enough to read "ten years later" they are literate enough to realise Feb 25 2000 - Feb 11 1990 = about ten years. I also cut down the ruling/appeals sentence so it's one slightly shorter sentence. Professor Ninja

Yes indeed, my "ten years" addition was exactly opposite my logic in removing the "13 days" in a preceding edit, wasn't it. Regarding the DCA, I haven't yet read what the DCA said, so maybe I was uninformed in my criticism. It is true that they review matters of law, and if they made a comment like that on the evidence, then it might be notable. But I don't quite understand what they would be doing to say that - wouldn't they be stepping outside their jurisdiction to comment in such a way? Perhaps a lawyer can address this. Tropix 03:04, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. There's several angles to take on appeal, the Schindlers weren't contesting the finding of fact, they were contesting the ruling based on that finding of fact. That is, they didn't or couldn't take issue with the evidence, so they appealed that the evidence showed x instead of y. The appellate commented to the effect that the ruling was the correct one to make, and not only that, but that the evidence was rock solid. I'm no lawyer in any sense, but I'm quite familiar with the Canadian system, which shares the same root as the American system, and I would assume that they have functionally the same process. For example, I would assume that under the American system, once introductions are made, no new evidence can be entered, so that the hearings aren't clouded by constant "surprise" additions to the trial. An appeal can be filed after the ruling based on new evidence, however, that wasn't introduced at trial. Etc. -- mid-sentence update, I checked abstract appeal, and here is how Matt Conigliaro explains it:

When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would choose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue.... The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature." Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.

So, that says it then. Professor Ninja 04:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I just made one further intro edit which I will note here. The trial court considered that she was in PVS, but that wasn't the ruling -- the actual order was to remove artificial life support, and that authorization was addressed to Micheal Shiavo. So I moved his status up from the following paragraph to clarify the order, and it is more cogent. Tropix 03:19, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Consensus; Complete, Majority, Super-Majority?

There seems to be an issue with POV and accuracy. Well, there appears to be by one person. Does there have to be complete agreement by all editors, present and future that an article is accurate and neutral? Does wikipedia permit one blackball to trash the earnest and sincere work of a dozen or more other contributers?

Of course POV is so subjective (by definition) that it could be argued that no article can truly be NPOV. Accuracy is another thing however, and given the cites that have been attached to virtually every significant point in the article, it's hard to imagine that anyone could dispute the accuracy of the article. Of course the invitation (gauntlet thrown down, if you will) has been made to aggrieved parties to cite specific inaccuracies, but they have yet to appear. Consequently accuracy of the article shouldn't be in dispute on the substantive issues. Details such as typos or poorly coded links shouldn't color the overall accuracy of the article and they are easily rectified. LRod 65.184.17.212 15:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed the tack most have taken in reference to this event. I believe that Jdavidb, Tropix, and Patsw have come to understand that because a fact is missing, or because the personally dispute the facts, does not mean that the factual accuracy is in dispute. Accuracy means the ability to hit the bullseye, precision is the ability to do it consistently. If you take a rifle and fire 1000 shots and 950 of them hit the X-ring, the accuracy of your rifle is not in dispute. The precision may be a problem, but not the accuracy. If a fair amount of users believe that the accuracy is a problem, then it may be. I don't think you need a majority consensus to debate the veracity of accuracy, but more than three or four users out of dozens is certainly a better way to go. Professor Ninja 18:14, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's bullshit. Does an RFC actually DO anything? Or does someone have to demand arbitration?

Abuse: Can we kill it now?

Perhaps the abuse issue can be put to rest. CNN published an article yesterday (15 April, 2005) reporting that Florida's Department of Children and Families had announced "[n]o information or evidence was found to support the allegations, the agency reported following several extensive investigations." The allegations were made by Bob and Mary Schindler who claimed ""that Michael Schiavo, who also was his wife's legal guardian, tried to starve her, beat her, inappropriately medicate her, and wanted her dead to gain financially." LRod 65.184.17.212 17:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, quash it. Point out that they alleged it but that it was repeatedly found totally unfounded. Include the DCF and GAL reports that contradict it.

It would be better, in my view, to post the actual scan or PDF from Florida Department of Children and Families. That should satisfy all, but the most fanatical. Wjbean 19:05, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the PDF file from The Florida Department of Children and Familites. http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/news/schiavo3.pdf. Which states in part AND CLOSED WITH NO INDICATORS WITH THE INVESTIGATION COMPLETE. NO INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE REPORT. The report is titled "Abuse Report" and name on the report is Shiavo, Theresa. I will leave it to someone else to incorporate this information, if seen fit, into the article. Wjbean 19:31, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy / Neutral Point of View

I would like to state 2 things:

Accuracy and precision are two different things. While they're often offered as synonyms, this isn't so, especially not in this case. If the facts repeatedly hit the mark, it is factually accurate and factually precise to a degree. To state that the entire article is in question because one or two items which are presented as fact are false is wrong. It is factually imprecise, and this needs to be rectified. Another problem that keeps coming up is users don't like the facts that are presented. That does not make them factually inaccurate. Palestinians didn't like the factually accurate video footage of them dancing in the street after the September 11th, 2001 attacks. That they didn't like that does not make that an inaccurate portrayal. They may take issue with the fact that those were, say, 1% of Palestinians, and it does not reflect the other 99%. That is a problem with precision, and that leads us directly to...

The POV of the article. If facts are repeatedly presented for only one side, they may be accurate, but they are imprecise. This leads to only one factually correct point of view being presented. For example, when Patsw offered the question of web accessability to a certain document, I corrected myself on the belief that the Schindlers did not stand to profit. What resulted was a diatribe on why it was unacceptable to include that fact in the article, despite the fact that the accusations of Michael's potential profiting from the death of Terri was included. I was under the impression that the legal/banking laws of the state of Florida were similar to those in my country, wherein trust accounts automatically become the property of those they are in trust to, meaning a spouse has default rights to division of assets upon divorce. Both Michael and the Schindlers stood to receive money from the death of Terri Schiavo, depending on the status of next-of-kin when she died. Patsw said the Schindlers consistently denied they were financial motivated and that to accuse them of that was cruel. You know what? Tough. Michael has made the same denials. Patsw said that Michael stood to get a "substantial payday". You know what? He also offered to relinquish control of all the money should the Schindlers stop petitioning to remove him as guardian. None of this matters. What does matter is that both stood to get a sum of money from the death of Terri Schiavo dependent on the circumstances. Stating that is not POV. It is NPOV. Stating only one or the other, on the other hand, stood to receive money, is POV. We are not mind readers. We do not give weight to accusations and then decide if they can be stated as factually correct instead of allegations. And, while we're on it, do not refer to factually correct statements (such as referring to a feeding tube as life support, as above) to be a POV. Half the facts introduce POV, all the facts do not. It irks me to no end to see any party introducing that.

What remains now is citations, citations, citations. If you take umbrage with the article as it stands, show why. Show why something is POV, rather than offering allegations. In the case of reality vs. insinuation, reality trumps all. People can dispute anything, that does not mean it is in dispute. The article on the Holocaust does not pause every sentence to say that various aspects of the article are in dispute by neo-Nazis. The article on Christianity does not pause every sentence to say that aspects of Chrisianity is in dispute by atheists and other religions. Etc., etc. If clear and concise facts offer evidence of something, we take it at face value. Dispute without merit and dispute with merit are different things.

People need to understand this because they are engaging in stall tactics to get their own POV into the article, which is unacceptable. Understand the difference between accuracy and precision. Understand the difference between facts and allegations. Understand the difference that some allegations are not more "true" than others. Understand that just because you don't like something does not mean it is not true. Understand that you cannot dispute something without citing it, and why. General disputes don't matter. While the level of discourse on this page has significantly improved by all parties and sides involved, we are still butting heads over these things. This is not pointing fingers at any users; most editors here have this particular egg on their face. In my opinion, Mia-Cle and Minaflorida distinctly stand out from that crowd and for that are to be commended. Tropix and Wjbean regularly recognize their own minor bias and for that are also to be commended. Patsw has also made a significant effort in documenting areas of dispute to try to hash out what, if anything, is wrong with the statement. The last thing that remains to be said is that, in this case, the Schindlers have repeatedly tried virtually every avenue to preserve their daughter's life. (As a side note, I'll point out that I think a parent outliving their child is possibly one of the most obscene occurences in the world and I don't blame or fault them for their efforts.) They have offered up evidence of just about anything and everything that they could, sometimes in conflict with their own previous evidence. The Iyer affidavit, for example, conflicts with the idea that they did not have evidence of abuse before discovering the bone scan. Since this is the case, the facts will often be against them in some respect (ie: two conflicting pieces of evidence cannot both be true). That does not mean the article is taking the "side" of Michael Schiavo. Furthermore, using the bone scan as another example, it is not in dispute that the Schindlers' attorneys had access to the bone scan and that it was not hidden. We cannot therefore jump to the conclusion that they ever saw it. While it is questionable why their attorneys wouldn't show this to them, it is not our place to say that, nor is it our place to say that the Schindlers are thereby lying. This does not mean that we are taking the "side" of the Schindlers. That said, I'm just about exhausted. But try to follow these guidelines, we can dispute allegations till our face is bluer than a smurf, it won't improve the article. Professor Ninja 20:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Issues of Dispute

POV with respect to "alleged incident". Remove "alleged" as the incident was audio-taped. What's disputed is whether Terri's vocalizations were consistent or inconsistent with a finding of PVS, with the court finding these vocalizations were consistent with PVS.

"Schiavo had been unable to speak since her heart attack in 1990" This was what the court concluded. The Schindler's, visitors, and health care providers gave testimony to the contrary. The current wording of this paragraph would lead one to believe that this was disputed only on March 18 2005 and not for several years and by several witnesses in several court appearances. It should be reworded to reflect that this was a long-standing dispute. patsw 16:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What was this in reference to? It may very well be alleged. If it is audiotaped that does not matter in certain contexts. Allegations can arise from what the incident is being framed as. If they're framing it as she's trying to talk, it's alleged. Period. Professor Ninja 17:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, there is an audiotape of it where now? How do we know it's her voice? I always thought those exclusively in the room with her could have barked it out for the sake of any nearby witnesses. No, that is most definitely an allegation. Professor Ninja 17:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Weller was in the room, with police present of course, just prior to her feeding tube being removed, spoke to Terri, "Terri, if you would just say, 'I want to live,' - all of this will be over." Terri made vocalizations, it was taped, it was witnessed. Later the tape was played in court for a motion that Terri was not in PVS. It was played all over the MSM and net. That's the incident.

No one disputes that it happened, or that it is not Terri's vocalizations which are on the tape or that this is a trick. It is not alleged. This is no doubt, dispute, or disagreement on that point. What's disputed is if those vocalizations were inconsistent with PVS. Greer ruled they were consistent with PVS. No claim was made that there was fraud involved in the evidence presented. Alleged introduces a POV. patsw 20:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I'm sorry. Could you provide a citation for this? I have never heard of an audio tape of this, I have never heard of it played in the mainstream media. I have heard the claim in the media. I've also heard alot of blogs complaining that they didn't subpoena the officer who supposedly witnessed this. I've never heard that anybody but Weller & Co. witnessed this in any way. Please, cite this before you change it. Professor Ninja 20:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The only vocalizations that she made were incoherent "Ahhhhhhhh waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh", which have been interpreted as natural sounds related to the removal of the feeding tube. Besides, who's to say she wasn't saying "I want to die?" Rick K 20:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

And that -- we've been over that aspect before. Professor Ninja 20:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The feeding tube was not in the process of being removed. The vocalizations are a response to what Weller said. I'm not disputing that Greer ruled they were incoherent. For evidence of this is being in the MSM see Google News Search and Weller's declaration There was no need to subpoena the female officer mentioned in Weller's declaration unless the authenticity of the recording was contested at the hearing.

RickK, if she could say in an articulate way "I want to die" she would not be in a PVS, and we would be dealing with an entirely different scenario.

And I am working on getting a link to the recording which has value in itself to be linked to the article. patsw 20:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you're missing the point. Where's this tape? I'm well aware of the alleged "AHHHHHHHHHHH WAAAAAAAAAAAAA" incident. You said there was a tape. Neither Weller's declaration or Google News make any mention of a tape. Professor Ninja 21:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Might could I offer the following as a compromise for the paragraph in question. It avoids alleged and questions of credibility, it avoids speculation, and doesn't provide any extrenuous, irrelevant detail. How the Weller affidavit and accompanying audiotape (?) were presented in the battle for public opinion can be elsewhere. It is based on the motion (motion with affidavits available on theempirejournal.com i believe) and the order (available through the um website).

After the feeding tube was removed, the Schindlers filed a series of motions, including an emergency motion for relief from judgment based upon the incapacitated's articulation of end-of-life wishes. Affidavits were provided to show that Mrs. Schiavo had cognitive interaction with others and that it was possible, with time, for Mrs. Schiavo's communication skills to improve. One affidavit was from Barbara Weller, attorney for the Schindlers. In it, Weller stated that immediately prior to the removal of the feeding tube and while she was with Mrs. Schiavo, she grabbed both of Mrs. Schiavo's arms and begged Mrs. Schiavo very hard to say that she wanted to live. Weller stated that Mrs. Schiavo's response was to articulate "Ahhhhhhh" and to scream "Waaaaaaa." Weller viewed this as Mrs. Schiavo's attempt to say, "I want to live." The judge reviewed this evidence and concluded that this was not a cognitive response, but rather a response to stimuli and random vocalization consistent with prior medical evidence of persons in a PVS. Further, all this new evidence was not sufficient to establish that the proposed new treatments offered sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex. The judge thus denied this emergency motion because all the evidence provided was not new and was not sufficient to overcome the prior judgment.

It does leave out the other grounds for denial (waiver--all this should have been raised two days earlier at another motion hearing but wasn't even mentioned), but for this section, this paragraph, that seemed like legal overkill.--Mia-Cle 23:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sounds neutral to me, and it's fairly short to boot. there is a "she" pronoun that is a bit confusing. suggest "while she was with Mrs. Schiavo, she grabbed" to "while she was with Mrs. Schiavo, Weller grabbed". it's got my vote. FuelWagon 23:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(THIS IS A REPLY TO PREVIOUS GROUP, I HAVE NOT YET READ 23:38 14 Apr 2005) Okay, I get the point. I have not found the tape. The incident is real and evidence was not presented that it was fraud on the part of Barbara Weller and Suzanne Vitadamo, in fact, what I thought was the tape appears to have been a error on the part of The Family Research Council

This audio file has been re-posted to our website. We were originally persuaded that it was from Friday, March 18 but we now know that it was recorded over a year ago.

However, the facts remain that Terri is a human being who, unlike the way she has been portrayed, is not in a persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to her family and surroundings. Just as the unborn child hidden in the womb is simply referred to as a blob of tissue, by advocates of the culture of death, Terri's reality is being consistently misportrayed.

This recording gives you a glimpse inside Terri's hospice room to see that she too is human. For highlighting that truth and for defending her life we make no apologies.

Empire News explains the reason why there isn't a tape:

Greer and Schiavo have forbidden the Schindlers to take video cameras into Terri?s room. In fact, the Schindlers are reportedly strip searched prior to their visits with their daughter. A female police officer who visibly demonstrated her shock at the time of Terri?s attempts to say "I want to live" later denied hearing it although she has not put her statement into sworn form.

Apparently, there was no statement from this officer supporting or contradicting the Barbara Weller and Suzanne Vitadamo statements.

Coming full circle, this is a real incident, no one is asserting it didn't happen, certainly not in court. The judge ruled that even it is happened as recounted by the affidavits, the vocalizations were consistent with PVS. The article should indicate this without casting unwarranted doubt on the veracity of Weller and Vitadamo.

No, that's garbage. Okay, there is no tape, that was made up. But there's no audiotape because Michael won't allow videocameras into the room and he has them strip searched? Give me a break. As for it being a real incident, that's questionable. The fact of the matter is either 1) it happened or 2) it didn't. The fact that the judge didn't say it didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Judge can't simply accuse somebody of perjuring themselves; he assumed that the testimony was truthful, that it did happen, and under that assumption dismissed it as irrelevant. To me, it strikes me as Weller's hypermanipulation of the court of law to influence the court of public opinion. There is no record of it happening. There is no independent confirmation. There is no proof that if it did happen, it wasn't coincidence. There is no proof that if it did happen and it wasn't coincidence, that it wasn't Terri telling them she wanted to die. This is all as speculative as Weller and Vitadomo's testimony, and has been asserted as such in the public record. We can either include all of that, or include none of it. We cannot include just some, particularly the some that you want. Professor Ninja 08:46, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I propose this wording:

On March 18, 2005, attorney Barbara Weller and Terri's sister, Suzanne Vitadamo visited Terri. Weller alleges in this sworn statement:

Terri if you could only say 'I want to live' this whole thing could be over today." I begged her to try very hard to say, "I want to live." To my enormous shock and surprise, Terri's eyes opened wide, she looked me square in the face, and with a look of great concentration, she said, "Ahhhhhhh." Then, seeming to summon up all the strength she had, she virtually screamed, "Waaaaaaaa." She yelled so loudly that Michael Vitadamo, Suzanne's husband, and the female police officer who were then standing together outside Terri's door, clearly heard her.

With this statement and one by Suzanne Vitadamo, the Schindlers filed a motion asserting that Schiavo was not in a PVS. The court denied the motion on the basis that substantially similar evidence was presented earlier and found to be consistent with a person in PVS. patsw 00:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I prefer my wording because I directly quote the affidavit and do not introduce a POV by paraphrase. I provide the links so the context can be examined as well. I also note the reason for the denial of the motion which I believe to be relevant and significant. I agree with mia-cle that irrelevant material doesn't need to be added here. patsw 00:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My problem with this is that while quoting the affidavit is factual (Weller said "blah blah blah"), the affidavit itself is by definition POV. It is one side's presentation and interpretation of facts, Weller's.

I used the following court documents in drafting my paragraph above: the Schindlers' 25 March 2005 "Emergency Motion for Injunctive and Immediate Relief -- Respondents' Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.540(b)(5) Motion for Relief from Judgment Based upon the Incapicatated's Articulation of End of Life Issues" and its accompanying five affidavits. You can see it in its entirety on Theempirejournal.com[23] The 26 March 2005 order denying this motion is available at the UM website [24] 'Your version of this motion and order is extremely misleading and introduces a POV by quoting extensively from an affidavit filed in support of one party's motion. ' Your account is also glaring for its omissions: if you're going to quote the drama, then add the detail. For example, on March 18, 2005, Weller promised Terri that she (Weller) would tell the world that Terri had tried to say "I want to live." However, Weller's affidavit/new evidence was not written until March 22, 2005, and was not raised at a March 23, 2005 hearing on a similar motion filed by the Schindlers. The motion itself wasn't filed until one week after the event. Nor was this affidavit/new evidence presented to Judge Whittmore in the federal case. Then quote from the judge's order about waiver (and don't forget the bit about the Schindlers repeated attempts to relitigate the case in its post-trial motions). --Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 01:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My editing choices are to present what I thought was significant about the March 18 interaction between Barbara Weller and Terri Schiavo and its failure to persuade Judge Greer. It is Weller's account -- what she said she saw and heard. It is not argumentation on my part. Could you provide a link supporting your characterization of "grabbed"? The timing of the motion to Greer and it's non-presentation to Whittmore is only speculation. The only significance that I draw from it is that it made it easier for Greer to rule negatively on procedural grounds. You are correct to point out that while the incident was publicized within hours on the Sean Hannity show on March 18 and it was not presented to the court in the form of a motion until March 23. But again, I am reporting the events, not the non-events, or speculation why things happened in the order they did. patsw 03:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the best option is to very briefly describe the alleged event and link to the court documents. It's an unverifiable piece of information. Further, I am confused as to why some folks want to take this "ah wa" as gospel when it clearly cannot be discerned to represent any clear speech/communication, let alone, the communication of "I want to live." Why is "Terri told me she wouldn't want to be kept alive artificially" not acceptable, but someone's characterization of the sounds "ah" and "wa" as signifying "I want to live" acceptable? I think I know the answer to this: people want to believe it. I do not fault them for that. Perhaps, if I believed in miracles, and not medical science and biology, I might be persuaded to believe that someone with Terri Schiavo's level of brain damage could speak and respond. What if I say, in an affidavit, that I heard Terri Schiavo say "I am the queen of England"? Could we include it in the wiki article? I don't think we should. The only relevance this incident has is that it was indeed introduced to the court and it got oodles of media attention. We should state one or two sentences describing the alleged event, link the court documents, and let the reader put together the puzzle and make judgements. If we include more original writing than that, our POVs are bound to slip in. Clearly, you can see that I have a POV on this, as does everyone, and that's OK and it's normal; our duty is to prevent that POV from entering the article. The (1 or 2 or maybe 3) sentence(s) referring to the incident should be as succinct as possible. I propose something along the lines of:

On March 18, 2005, attorney Barbara Weller and Terri's sister, Suzanne Vitadamo visited Terri in hospice. Weller alleges, in this sworn statement, that, after pleading with Ms. Schiavo to say, "I want to live," Schiavo attempted to directly verbally communicate with her by saying "ah," then screaming "wa."

Speculation that "ah wa" means "I want to live" has no place in the article. I think it is best to just say that Weller asked her to say "I want to live" and she said "ah wa." The reader can either agree that "ah wa" was a response and that that response was "I want to live" or they can not agree.--Minaflorida 12:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patsw: let me get this straight, you took umbrage at one word and decided to rewrite an entire paragraph? Fine. Next time, why don't you just suggest using the word "took" instead of "grabbed." My bad, I apologize. I guess I was carried away by the drama of the moment.

Minaflorida: there are no issues of credibility or verifiability here, and it's not necessary to go there. Nor is there speculation -- it is quite clear that Ms. Weller believed/interpreted/viewed the vocalization as meaning "I want to live." I have no problem with that. Or that Ms. Vitadamo also believes/interpreted the same thing. (Same thing for whether or not the event happened--the judge didn't address the issue of credibility, and it's really not necessary to do so.) I will give them due deference and respect the good faith effort, and take them for what they are, affidavits filed in support of a motion. As the cognitive ability was an issue of dispute, then it's okay to show the two points of view, as articulated within the motion and order. Let the reader decide.

Might I suggest the following, then:

Terri Schiavo's cognitive abilities continued to be a disputed issue until the very end. After the feeding tube was removed in 2005, the Schindlers filed a series of motions, including an emergency motion for relief from judgment based upon the incapacitated's articulation of end-of-life wishes. Affidavits were provided to show that Mrs. Schiavo had cognitive interaction with others and that it was possible, with time, for Mrs. Schiavo's communication skills to improve. One affidavit was from Barbara Weller, attorney for the Schindlers. In it, Weller stated that immediately prior to the removal of the feeding tube and while she was with Mrs. Schiavo, Weller took both of Mrs. Schiavo's arms and begged Mrs. Schiavo very hard to say that she wanted to live. Weller stated that Mrs. Schiavo's response was to articulate "Ahhhhhhh" and to scream "Waaaaaaa." Weller viewed this as Mrs. Schiavo's attempt to say, "I want to live." The judge reviewed this evidence and concluded that this was not a cognitive response, but rather a response to stimuli and random vocalization consistent with prior medical evidence of persons in a PVS. Further, all this new evidence was not sufficient to establish that the proposed new treatments offered sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex. The judge thus denied this emergency motion because all the evidence provided was not new and was not sufficient to overcome the prior judgment.

(BTW, the paragraph about the 1998 gal report should preceed this paragraph.) A potential conclusion as either a sentence to this paragraph or as a separate pargraph would be the autopsy report when it appears. E.g., the autopsy report showed/didn't show/was inconclusive...--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 13:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mia-Cle: I think you've done an excellent job with that paragraph. You've got my go-ahead. What do you think, patsw, others?--Minaflorida 16:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have only one problem with Mia-Cle's summary; that is, The judge reviewed this evidence and concluded that this was not a cognitive response, but rather a response to stimuli and random vocalization implies that it actually happened. Which we still don't know for certain. I appreciate that legally, this is the correct procedure, but Wikipedia is hardly a legal site. I propose "the judge reviewed this evidence and found it and the proposed new therapy were not sufficient to challenge the prior judgment." <-- end paragraph. It cuts out alot of wordiness, too. Remember, if we can't prove it happened, as far as we're concerned, it didn't. Professor Ninja 17:19, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I like your sentence, Ninja, but I would include the word "that" between "found" and "it" for ease of reading. As to your comment, "...if we can't prove it happened, as far as we're concerned, it didn't": Does this not apply, also, to the statement that she had a low potassium level due to bullemia? That is not something we can prove, yet it is stated as plain fact in the first few sentences. I have seen some evidence that suggests she suffered from bulimia, but every reputable article I have read on the subject says that she is "believed to have been" bulimic. I do not think we can say, with certainty, that her potassium deficiency was indeed induced by bulimia. What do you think? I'll take the discussion up to the bulimia section of the talk page; I just wanted to point out that it is unverifiable and that I have yet to see any media outlet state it as fact as we have done.--Minaflorida 18:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pithy is okay. How about this--The judge reviewed all the evidence presented and found that the vocalization and the proposed new therapy were insufficient to challenge the prior judgment. ("it" made me wonder to which "it" "it" referred). (I am naturally partial to my version because it shows how you can have an event interpreted in two ways -- one that takes the vocalizations as hope of cognition, the other as vocalizations consistent with prior medical evidence of PVS. But hey, it's only words. Pithy has its merit. As for "proving" it happened--erg. I think thanks to all the public spin, whether or not it happened is a moot point--it's significance is that it was put forth as evidence and we're stuck with it. Happy to debate whether or not i think it happened offline, but that's not relevant here. And apologies for drifting into legalese every now and again, it's a bad habit that pays the bills...)(And thank you Minafla)--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 19:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re: proving it happened. Schindlers said it happened. Is there anything by Michael or the Judge that question whether it happened or not? If the only party questioning whether Terri said "ah" and "wa" is third parties, but Michael or the Judge never questioned that it actually happened, then it should probably be stated in the simple form that it did happened. I think a good rule of thumb is to simplify this down to what the actual players dispute, not what third parties dispute. As far as I'm concerned, the sounds "ah" and "wa" came out of Terri's mouth as Weller claims. I do not doubt the event. I also believe Greer's assessment was correct in that the sounds are in line with vocalizations made by PVS patients and that the sounds did not reflect awareness on Terri's part. FuelWagon 20:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there's no question in the (court) record that i've seen that questions whether or not it happened (although, i never have seen a link to any response to the motion by Schiavo, so i cannot be entirely certain) -- essentially b/c you don't have to, you can review the affidavit without assessing credibility. or as the judge put it, "While not reaching the credibility issues involved, the Court does note that according to both of these affidavits, Terri Schiavo's sounds occurred after Ms. Weller took Mrs. Schiavo's arms in both of her hands and this is consistent with evidence presented at the 2002 trial, that from time to time she responds to stimuli, that she makes limited vocalizations, and that she can move and change facial expressions." and so on. (italics added; pp. 3-4 of the order). I wrote my paragraph along the same line--affidavits noted, interpretations differ, reader can decide for self whether or not it happened. So, suggestions for change are _____? (please fill in the blank).--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 21:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Mia-Cle, I should have been more clear. I don't have a problem with your text. I was simply offering a counter-view to the Professor's dispute whether the event happened or not. Now that you mention Greer's response, if Greer said "not reaching the credibility issues involved", then I think that might be worth including too, just because it clarifies that the court did not get into whether it happened or not. To completely reveal my bias here, I assume nothing but "good faith" in all of your contributions and only wish you had more time to work on it. I can do "brute force" editing, putting related things in close proximity, putting things in sequential order, but you actually know what you're doing and can actually make sense out of this legal mumbo jumbo. Could we clone you for a while? ;) FuelWagon 22:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. See below, I'll mull all this over and have another go at it. (You're doing fine, and it's not "mumbo jumbo." It's not. It's not. It's not. Which isn't to say that some of it isn't complicated, but it can be understood, and there's my bias. I want the legal process bits to be clear enough so that the reader can come to his/her own conclusions about the substance of what's at stake/issue, without being told what that conclusion should be b/c the legal stuff has been hijacked to promote a particular point of view.)--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 20:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the point here is being missed. 1) Michael Schiavo cannot dispute that this happened as he wasn't in the room when it did happen. To offer evidence or testimony against this would be a flat out lie on his behalf. 2) The court has to approach everything as credible, and determine it on that basis. For example, the Iyer affidavit was rejected as incredible because of the conspiracy required on behalf of the police, the nursing home, and even the Schindlers for it to be possible. Sure, that conspiracy might exist, but the more credible theory, that it didn't exist, was found. 3) There is nothing incredible about Terri making vocalizations, so the Judge would be in an ethics mess if he found that way. (I'm basing this on assumptions of Canadian law, but as far as I know the foundations of jurisprudence in both countries are based on British common law, and aside from you guys seeing fit to combine the offices of barrister and solicitor (no problem, we did that too) and then change what they were called (for shame!) I don't think there's much difference in the actual approach to fact finding). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Judge has to approach this as that having sworn this testimony in, it is thereby truthful. It is a classic philosophical argument. "I accept that this is true. In accepting this argue as true, I still find x." That still doesn't mean that it happened. It means that, for the sake of argument, the Judge accepted that it happened, and still found it irrelevant. Michael can't dispute it because he has no grounds for dispute. Remember that to protest Michael's assertions as to what Terri's end-of-life wishes were, they had to introduce other witnesses who asserted Terri said otherwise. Essentially, you can't flat out say no. The only witnesses to the alleged "AHHHHH WAAAAAAAA" event were Weller and Vitadamo, therefore nobody else can contest that it happened. It is still, however, allegation, not fact. Professor Ninja 22:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

quickie response: point not lost, but you did leave out an alternative line of thought: the judge dodged the credibiity issue b/c he could, in other words, upon reading it, i find that it comports with previous evidence and therefore i never have to test the crediblity/truthfulness (having z, i find x; therefore, no need to find y). [and as for we rebels south of your border, yeah, yeah, we changed the names but we kept the title (even though we probably shouldn't), go figure, eh? :-) (see esquire[25])]--Mia-Cle, Esq.64.132.60.202 23:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True enough. What should be stressed (especially given how much some folks have been reminding us that finding of fact =!= actually fact) is that this is alleged to have happened, which is my only issue. Two people with a vested interest will lie. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'd do it too if I had an interest. That's besides the point; the point is this. Do you have to refer to your fellow lawyers as learned colleagues, and address the bench-warmers as "your worship?" Professor Ninja 23:51, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I will put my "trust but verify" attitude toward affidavits to the back of my head, mull this over, and have another go at it. I think "trust but verify" b/c affidavits are written, ex parte statements made or taken under oath before an officer of the court [i.e., can be your lawyer] or a notary public or other person duly authorized so to act. Ex parte means on behalf of, on the application of, one party, by or for one party. (Defns courtesy of Barron's Law Dictionary, which sits on the shelf next to my Fla. R. Civ. Pro.) There's also a vested interest in telling the truth, btw -- I personally cannot believe that my learned colleagues would risk their licenses by knowingly presenting false evidence to the court and his honor. I'm with fuelwagon on this one, I do think it happened, but they saw what they wanted to see and phrased it that way in the affidavits. These are smart lawyers--they may push the envelope to the extreme, but they wouldn't do something that stupid. (Frankly, if they were going to lie, they would have written something that doesn't fit hand in glove with the credible medical evidence on PVS. As for the delay in filing, the motion is a variation on the theme of cognition w/o particularly strong evidence, which would give one pause before filing.) (As for how one refers to one's learned colleagues and his honor, it depends--is one in the courtroom, in chambers, or in the privacy of one's office?)--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 20:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go go indentations. Well, the issue I take with it is the fact that it is stated as fact, which isn't quite true. Now, I'm not saying I doubt that it happened, nor am I saying I doubt that it didn't happen. Confused yet? Anyway, I just don't know either way, and I don't know that if it did happen, what it meant. Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time a lawyer lied and you'd have a very, very hard time proving any ethics violation because of the ambiguous phrasing of the affidavit. Terri's known to make vocalizations, so the only fashion they could know that she didn't make a vocalization is if they had audio/video (video's needed to make sure nobody else said it) recorders in the room, which would be a possibly implicit violation of Terri's rights depending on who placed the recorder and how the record was obtained, and an explicit violation of Michael Schiavo's standing order. Professor Ninja 15:06, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

What is truth? What is beauty? It lies in the eye of the beholder...and that perception can be examined, scrutinized and possibly impeached on cross-exam (which can and does happen at evidentiary hearings if so required, it just wasn't so required at this motion hearing that involved these affidavits b/c on its face, it didn't provide any new evidence). (Lawyers "lie"? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to hear that. Just kidding, it is a professional perception-reputation problem, although there are rules of professional conduct and one really doesn't put false evidence before the court. honest. Can't you just try and think of it as "zealous advocacy for the client..."?) As you note, visual/audio supplemental proof would be extremely problematic. (I think, off the cuff, that recordings require the consent of all parties. (I do know that Fla is a two-party consent to telephone tape recording, I just don't know how far it extends w/o research.)) Which is just a road no one wants to travel, or at least, I certainly don't. So why address it if it isn't necessary...--Mia-Cle 19:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

so, upon reflection, how about if the paragraph uses the word "claimed" instead of "stated" and "asserted" instead of "stated" (I think there are only two stated "stated"s). Yes, no, indifferent?--Mia-Cle 21:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's okay. I don't even have a problem with stated, I just have a problem with the implication that it happened as fact. As long as we make a point that only Weller/Vitadamo have stated they heard it (and in all fairness, that the officer posted at the door stated she did not here it, despite the fact that at least one of them claimed it was loud enough for the officer to be startled, or something to that effect) then it's okay. On the A/V issue, any medical institution can set up any monitoring system it deems necessary. Hospitals often tape patients to perform round the clock observations (at least here), especially if they're comatose (so probably for PVS too) to monitor for signs of conciousness. The problem is that if the hospital set it up as a monitoring system its patient privilege, but most medical records do not privelege information in a group (ie: Weller and Vitadamo's presence should nullify patient privilege) so ... can of worms that's also moot. The only point is 1) it shouldn't be presented as fact that it happen, it should be presented as fact that they say it happened, 2) it shouldn't be presented as fact that it didn't happen, only that the judge found it irrelevant, and 3) it should also be presented that the officer present didn't recall hearing it, despite assertions to the contrary in one or both of the statements (I think). That's all that matters. We don't and can't know, thus, we don't and can't pass judgment. Professor Ninja 22:12, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oye, chico/chica, you are more difficult to draft for than a partner. (I couldn't stand the indents any more, sorry.) So, how about this sentence, instead: Affidavits were provided by the Schindlers to substantiate their assertion that Mrs. Schiavo had cognitive interaction with others and that it was possible, with time, for Mrs. Schiavo's communication skills to improve. (new bits in italics)--Mia-Cle 16:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chico. It may be sexism here, but I have far to much respect for women to think they'd be stupid enough to name themselves "Professor Ninja". I know I'm nitpicky, I just worry about the article falling to one side or the other without getting at the truth; in this case we don't really know what the truth is. Your wording, by the by, is fantastico. I'll try to create somethingwith/tweak that and then run it by you guys. Professor Ninja 17:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Kudos on the naming respect, muchas gracias for the kudos on the writing, and vaya con dios on the tweaking. Can we archive the majority of this now?--Mia-Cle 20:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't state that in the opening sentence, actually. I think we still have a new wording we're trying to hash out. Let me find it. It should be on this page. Professor Ninja 18:40, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

This is my proposed wording from above...

The cause of Terri's collapse is still in dispute. During Schiavo's malpractice trial, the court found that the cause of the cardiac arrest was a potassium imbalance caused by undiagnosed bulimia. It was later contended that another possible cause was physical trauma. (see below)

Which seems alot better to me. Professor Ninja 18:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ninja: I made a comment up in the bulimia section. Will you go check it out? It's about simply removing the words "due to bulimia" from the third sentence of the article. Thanks--Minaflorida 19:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)