Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Please Use This Talk Page Correctly

From Wikipedia:Wikiquette

• Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.
• You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
• Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!).

Please bear these items in mind when posting to this talk page. This article is controversial and somewhat high traffic. Mis/overuse of the talk page makes it difficult for this page to serve its intended purpose.
Fox1 11:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to merge and split public opinion and activism section

Both sections can be split and merged into one article, leaving at least two paragaphs in the main article, one for each section. --Viriditas | Talk 05:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, sounds good ... activism is just public opinion of an extreme sort anyway. Something like 'Activism and Public Opinion in the Terri Schiavo case'? I'm for it. Proto 08:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2nd. See my comments on reducing the article size.--ghost 15:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

third-ed. Can we declare the "Terri Shiavo" article to be the "main" article, and have it reference all the "sub articles" in one location? FuelWagon 16:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Creationism has a nice table called {{creationism2}} that's used in most subs. Anyone able to do this for Terri Schiavo off-the-cuff? If not, I'll learn the code this wkd.--ghost 16:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd have a look, and see if I could do it. Then I did [have a look], and now I want someone else to do it. Templates are hard, yo. Proto t c 14:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the best looking templates I've seen to rip off is on The Matrix, at the bottom. Not sure if Terri Schiavo will ever need a complex one, as at the most you'd have at the top the main article, then at level 2 the split-off articles, 'Government involvement ...' and (hopefully) 'Disputes ...' and 'Public Opinion ...', then at level 3, the timeline, the Schiavo memo and the Palm Sunday Compromise. Proto t c 14:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Burial details

Michael Schiavo had the words, "Departed this Earth February 25, 1990" and "At peace March 31, 2005" inscribed on the bronze grave marker. Below this, an engraving of a dove with an olive branch appears with the words, "I kept my promise."

Very nicely put. That dénouement is far more elegant than the one I would have suggested. Duckecho 13:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stanselmdoc, this section on burial doesn't need to repeat the date of her collapse and the date of her death. The date of her death in all aspects was March 31, 2005, not merely medically. This section doesn't need to contain advocacy for or against new definitions of death. Newspaper accounts need to mention the 1990 and 2005 dates to give the reader a context for the inscription which is not necessary to add to this article in this place. patsw 20:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, but please don't think I was advocating definitions of death. I was only trying to clarify for people who scroll through the article only looking for information from one section (i.e. the memorial section).Stanselmdoc 21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the Schindlers invited Michael to the two services they held? Duckecho 21:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak to communications that the Schindlers had with Michael, but the two services the Schindlers had were announced to the public and open to the media. The wire services picked up the burial story around 10pm on Jun 20 and I don't know when Felos sent out the faxes or who in the media got it first. patsw 21:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the Schindlers were not notified before the service is part of the story that the news media is reporting. It's accurate and relevant. It's not POV. 4.250.139.231, your dispute is with Mitch Stacy of the Associated Press and not with me. patsw 23:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is in incredibly poor taste for Michael Schiavo to use Terri's gravestone as a forum for defending what he did to her. Unbelievable, really. What a sorry... well, never mind, because if I were to say what I really think about his behavior I would just make his defenders here upset.

In 1992 he swore under oath that he wanted to care for her for the rest of his life. He certainly didn't consider her "departed from this earth" then. "Departed this Earth 1990" -- what rubbish. NCdave 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NCDave. It's in incredibly poor taste to continue to slander someone who has been proved innocent of wrongdoing. It never ceases to amaze me how you completely ignore the Schindlers slanderous and near criminal remarks regarding Michael Shaivo and then turn right around and deride Mr. Shaivo for marking Terri's gravestone as he saw fit. The autopsy has clearly exonerated Mr. Shaivo and made fools of the Schindlers and people like you.

I wonder Dave, if you were innocent of any wrongdoing and your wife’s family made you out to be a sociopathic criminal in the press just what you'd have to say in your defense? What would you think if all your best efforts to defend yourself were met with the near evil reticence you show here? Wjbean

Everything you need to know about NCdave's cognition

In one place or another, NCdave has flogged us with a phrase from the neuropathologist's report which found that the frontal areas of Terri's brain, the areas responsible for cognition, were "relatively preserved."

He follows that one sentence later with a leap of extrapolation asserting the relatively good condition of her frontal lobes. Not only are those phrases not synonymous in the abstract, they are distinctly antonymous given the context of the neuropathologist’s remarks.

NCdave has already demonstrated his inability to digest complex rhetoric with his misinterpretation (probably purposeful, but I'll be generous...) of not one, not two, but three definitions of atrophy from sources he cited.

Moreover, despite at least three different postings in the last week by me highlighting the common lay misunderstanding of the difference between cardiac arrest and myocardial infarct (heart attack), NCdave perpetuated the fallacy just this morning (21 June) in trying to make his case that it just couldn't have been cardiac arrest.

For those who have not read the autopsy report (NCdave is clearly among them) the medical examiner stated the following:

Mrs. Schiavo's brain showed marked global anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy resulting in massive cerebral atrophy. Her brain weight was approximately half of the expected weight. Of particular importance was the hypoxic damage and neuronal loss in her occipital lobes, which indicates cortical blindness. Her remaining brain regions also show severe hypoxic injury and neuronal atrophy/loss.

To save the reader time, particularly as most of are not versed in medical terminology, here are brief definitions of arcane terms in medicine:

Marked means significant. Global means widespread. Anoxic means lack of oxygen. Ischemic means deficiency of blood. Encephalopathy means degenerative disease of the brain (in medicine, disease means any anomaly of a structure of the body—lay people think of disease solely as ailments such as measles, polio, malaria, etc.). Hypoxic is similar to anoxic and means reduced oxygen. Neuronal means relating to neurons, which are the conducting cells of the nervous system. Occipital lobes are the front part of the brain. Cortical blindness means an inability of the brain to process signals from the retina/optic nerve mechanism. Atrophy means wasting away and reduction in size.

Duckecho, you left out one definition - admittedly it wasn't a medical one. Indicate does not mean prove. It means point out, point towards, and even, in some contexts, suggest. My personal feeling is that here it's something between "suggest" and "prove", probably a little closer to "prove". And by the way, the twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary backs me up on that. Ann Heneghan 17:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since this was a medical document, written by medical professionals, to report on a medical procedure, performed for a medical purpose, I went to a medical dictionary to see what it says. While indicate itself doesn't appear, two derivatives, clearly based on the same root word are defined thusly:

indication (in•di•ca•tion) [L. indicatio] a sign or circumstance which points to or shows the cause, pathology, treatment, or issue of an attack of disease; that which points out; that which serves as a guide or warning. [[1]]

indicant (in•di•cant) 1. indicating. 2. a symptom which indicates the true diagnosis or treatment. [[2]]

(highlights are mine) My personal feeling is they chose indicate because it is the correct word to make the cause and effect point that destroyed occipital lobes => cortical blindness. I also believe it's unambiguous in that sense. To try and imply any hedge in the report by the author's use of indicate is merely arguing for the sake of arguing. Duckecho 15:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This gives us a literal translation which means that Mrs. Schiavo's brain had significant, widespread, damage caused by blood deficiency due to oxygen starvation, and resulting in massive wasting away of the brain and a net reduction in size. Significantly, she was functionally blind. The rest of the brain was also damaged due to reduced oxygen and suffered a wasting away and loss of neuron cells.

This is not a half a brain as NCdave (ironically) purports. It is not a normal brain, cut in half, with one half completely degenerated while the other half remains healthy and undamaged. It is a profoundly damaged organ whose (remaining damaged) mass is less than half that of a normal expected brain. And further, from elsewhere in the report, she had hydrocephalus ex vacuo which means the atrophied brain was replaced by cerebro-spinal fluid. He loves talking about that.

Finally, on a slightly separate (but related to inability to reason) NCdave asked earlier "what do you think caused her heart to restart, after being stopped for so long?" completely ignoring the evidence already available here as well as at some of his favorite sites, that she had undergone cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and had been defibrillated several times prior to her arrival at the hospital.

You can safely ignore NCdave's posts, as he brings nothing new to the discussion, and much of the old is wild misinterpretation due to an inability to grasp the meaning of complex descriptions and issues. Duckecho 15:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What a shame! What a terrible, terrible shame that people on Michael Schiavo's side cannot restrain themselves from making personal attacks on people, as opposed to attacks on their arguments. And by the way, NCdave did bring something new to the discussion today. You had stated that Michael Schiavo was not Terri's estranged husband, and NCdave pointed out that your relationship with your wife would be over if she became engaged to another man, and if she lived with him for several years and had children by him. Of course, nobody wants to get personal about the marriages of fellow Wikipedians, but (nothing to do with you personally) do you think a relationship is or is not over when one of the parties becomes engaged to someone else, lives with that person for years, and has children by that person? I'm curious. Ann Heneghan 17:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've come to expect the personal attacks, unfortunately.  :-( But thank you for the kind words. NCdave 08:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your public dressing down of me over it being the permitted exception, apparently. I must have missed that somewhere. The fact of the matter is I did address his arguments, or more correctly, the points he either failed to make or utterly mis-made. Should you interpret that as a personal attack, it's beyond my control. NCdave's obsession with Michael's new family is not new. It predates your appearance here by some time. Moreover, if you can produce evidence of a divorce decree that everyone else has missed, it would be illuminating. Absent that, she was still his wife. Who spent years staying with her and caring for her? Who was still with her at the end? Go read the inscription he had put on her stone and try and find some compassion in your heart for his and her loss. That's the terrible, terrible shame. If you Michael haters, instead of vilifying him, would heap praise on his girl friend for not only understanding the nature of his relationship with Terri, but presumably supporting it, your energies would be far better expended. After all, it's hard to imagine she'd stay with him while he was seeing another woman unless there was a facet to the relationship beyond your ken...and concern. Now, back to defending the faith. Duckecho 17:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After all, it's hard to imagine she'd stay with him while he was seeing another woman unless there was a facet to the relationship beyond your ken...and concern. Your use of pronouns is confusing, Duck:

Do you mean that it's hard to imagine Terri would stay with Michael? (If that is the case, then please note: She had no choice!)

If, on the other hand, you mean that it's hard to imagine that Jodi Centonze would state with Michael, that is NOT hard to imagine either: She could have been in it for the money, assured that Terri would be assassinated and bumped off.

Either way, your contention that it’s "hard to imagine" is NOT hard for even my little brain.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Terri would be assassinated" Ya know, crap like this ought to automatically and permanently ban you from ever editing a Terry Schiavo article ever again. FuelWagon 14:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assassinate "To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons." (Yes, WAGON, Terri WAS "prominant," so the term applies properly; would you like me to make fun of your ability to read... OK, then don't suggest a permanent ban, another form of an Ad hominem attack against me.)--GordonWattsDotCom 17:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"would" be assassinated? No, that's not what I said: I said: "She could have been in it for the money, assured that Terri would be assassinated and bumped off." (I never said Terri WOULD be assassinated; I said Jodi COULD have been assured that Terri would. Also, "assassinated" IS the right word, as it applies to anyone famous or other than Joe Average Citizen. If you or I were to get bumped off, it would probably jut be bumped off and killed, not assassinated.) Quote me correctly; read ; re-read ; then, and only then, can you become a Jedi. Derogatory remarkes about a permanent ban make not a good padawan.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time an "other" woman was complicit in a husband's murder of his wife, for the money. NCdave 08:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that pointing out non-abusively that a particular contribution seems to violate a Wikipedia policy is itself a violation of that policy. And it was not your addressing of his arguments that I interpret as a personal attack, but the subject title of this thread. I fully agree that she was still his wife. I have never used "ex" in relation to the Schiavo case. On the grounds that he was engaged to and living with another woman, I have used, and still use "estranged", but only on the talk page. Ann Heneghan 21:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except for the subject line, Duckecho's post does seem to address only arguments. Also, calling Terri's husband "estranged" seems a bit inaccurate in it's connotations. After all, people who are "estranged" are separated by relationship problems. Michael and Terri were separated by medical problems. --L33tminion (talk) 17:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was the subject line that I objected to. However, we don't know that they were separated only by medical problems. Jackie Rhodes, Terri's friend, testified in court that Terri was considering divorce before her collapse. After her collapse, she was not in a position to make her wishes known. Ann Heneghan 21:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, whadya know, Ann's human like the rest of us. Welcome to the club, Ann. You're a member whether you want to be or not. FuelWagon 02:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"After all, people who are 'estranged' are separated by relationship problems." -L33tminion. Actually, estranged does not necessarily imply "relationship problems." The Encarta definition is simply, "no longer living with a husband or wife," and most of the other dictionaries I've checked have similar definitions. Some dictionaries add that "estranged" can imply that indifference or hostility have replaced love in a marital relationship, but that is certainly the case once a spouse has moved in with another lover, which was true of Michael as far back as early 1992, when he had Tolly and Shanna euthanized and moved in with Cindy Shook.

Furthermore, in Terri and Michael's case, their marriage was already in trouble in 1990. Things were so bad that she had told friends and family members that she wanted to or intended to divorce him.

That Michael no longer considered himself married to Terri is further demonstrated by the fact that he had Terri's engagement and wedding rings melted down to make jewelry for himself. NCdave 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"NCdave did bring something new to the discussion today. You had stated that Michael Schiavo was not Terri's estranged husband, and NCdave pointed out that your relationship with your wife would be over if she became engaged to another man, and if she lived with him for several years and had children by him." Giant. Who. Cares. I have no idea why this keeps coming up, it's far from "new," and it's quickly becoming my pet peeve. When you, me, Duck, Dave or the Pope think the relationship is over is capital 'I' irrelevant, inference, supposition, POV and wholly unsuitable for inclusion in the article. Ever. Period. Including the facts of who was living with whom when is perhaps, PERHAPS, permissible in the appropriate section of the article, anything beyond that is pure editorializing, and is just revert fodder. Furthermore, "engaged" is not any kind of legal status whatsoever.

Fox1 19:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I may disagree with Ms. Heneghan. This project, to state the painfully obvious, is hugely controversial. It follows that anything that goes toward resolving differences of opinion and putting forward a NPOV is to be lauded. I think it is important to remember that Wiki is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is a record. What happened goes in. We can each individually disagree with the opinions and actions of the various players, but the facts, so far as they can best be determined, should go in, whereas misinformation and innuendo (unless they were of particular significance to the events) should stay out.

It would appear however that this is too much to ask of NCDave, who, sadly, is easily the most extraordinary Wikipedian I've seen in my short time here. I do not begrudge him the apparent inability to consider alternate points of view - he is entitled to the attitude - but Duck does have a point that that attitude is unlikely to be helpful in a place like Wikipedia

For one thing, it's discouraging people who could make contributions from doing so (I'm speaking from experience here: I'm an MD with graduate training in the neurosciences, have diagnosed and managed patients with alterations of consciousness, and do basic science as well as clinical research in the neurosciences. While I have first hand knowledge of the medical and scientific issues, and can see that a lot of the medical/autopsy data is being subtly miswritten (by both sides, both unintentionally and intentionally) I will not be making contributions as I cannot imagine spending the time engaging Mr. Dave in a fruitless edit war). Discussion - even long discussion - is one thing. Mindless nonsense is quite another.

Lastly, I am quite amused by your hysteria. You thundered,

"What a shame! What a terrible, terrible shame that people on Michael Schiavo's side cannot restrain themselves from making personal attacks on people, as opposed to attacks on their arguments." In the very same breath that you chastise Duck for a "personal attack" on one individual, you launch a a rather blistering attack on a group of people, about all of whom were perfectly undeserving of your little tirade. That's a fancy bit of footwork, Ms. Heneghan.

I think the article will be best served if we tried to stick as closely as possible to the facts, recognize innuendo/hearsay/ and uncertainty for what they are (and there are lots on both sides) and craft the article accordingly.--Neuroscientist 00:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm merely inserting a comment here to say that your points are mostly good with respect to the purpose of Wikipedia: You're right - it's an encyclopedia, not some project on, say, democracy on the Internet, lol.

I don't know if you're complimenting Dave or what, but the only problem I've seen with Dave is that he is a little bit verbose; if you have a problem with a particular proposed edit to the article that Dave has, address it specifically, but attacking a man on his opinions is not productive: We all have differing opinions.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I too have a degree -a double major in the life sciences, Biology and Chemical Science -with honors, from The Florida State University, as well as a 2-year vocational degree in Electronics (valedictorian), and while I don't have any degree in law, I was the "activist" mentioned in the article here, the one with the 4-3 loss in Florida's Supreme Court, where I pled for Terri to get proper medical treatment and alleged a felony violation of, for example, chapter 825.102(3), Florida Law. So, you are not alone in "expertise." Yet, I contribute to Wiki -to my community, to give something back, you know?--GordonWattsDotCom 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ann is correct: Duck's title, "Everything you need to know about NCdave's cognition" is not exactly polite, but I must admit we've all made similar generalizations, and I understand how you may think Ann may have slightly over-reacted, since Duck wasn't SUPER RUDE. However, Ann was quite polite to Duck, in her reply, and I point out her last two sentences: She merely makes her point, does not attack, and asks Duck his opinion. Maybe you also slightly over-reacted?--GordonWattsDotCom 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, and in fact, in the Schiavo mediation page, I make that point and give an outline and cite examples of how other articles have surmounted similar problems: See e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation#Gordon.27s_solutions_OK:_I.27m_finished_contributing_for_now.3B_y.27all_fix_the_article_for_me.3B_I.27ve_done_my_part.2C_OK --GordonWattsDotCom 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ann is always polite, to everyone. NCdave 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I will not be making contributions" tis pity, tis true. We've got a lawyer on staff, though they're on sabbatical at the moment, and they really help with legal mumbo jumbo. Someone who can tell a neuron from a bit of grapefruit could come in handy. Just having someone who knows what the flargles he's talking about would be nice. NCdave appears to have gotten his diploma from the blogsforterri.org school of propaganda. The rest of us fit the hitchiker's guide to the galaxy entry for Earth: "mostly harmless". Pull up a keyboard. Sit a spell. FuelWagon 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dunno this is really embaressing in that there is an autopsy and it is just being ignored. Seems to me there are three bits of clear fact here. There is a medical story with clear details from the autopsy. The autopsy shows clear brain damage and it also seems to indicate that this woman wasnt being beaten.

there is then a very interesting area to do with the CHristian right and its battle with secular america

then there is a tale of a legal battle.

You all seem to have lost sight of the fact that the old article is almost all redundant now it needs to be split up and completely formatted.

Cheshire’s Diagnosis Dispute

Jon Gwynn continues to revert the "diagnosis dispute" section that mentions Cheshire's observations. This is getting to the point of just being stupid. If you had two possible versions to choose from, which would you vote for?

---

The version by Jon Gwynn

During his visit, he observed what he interpreted to be purposeful behavior, as when he stated that Schiavo appeared to be watching him for "about half a minute." Cheshire's affidavit said he believed he had found reason to doubt the PVS diagnosis and to prefer a diagnosis of "minimally conscious state" or MCS. Based on Cheshire's affidavit, Governor Jeb Bush filed a petition to have Schiavo's feeding tube restored. [3]

Schiavo's autopsy [4](performed two weeks after Cheshire's visit) found nothing inconsistent with the diagnosis of PVS and concluded that there was sufficient extensive damage to her brain to have rendered her incapable of the responses Cheshire described.

JonGwynn

---

The version by FuelWagon

During his visit, he observed what he interpreted to be purposeful behavior, as when he stated that Schiavo appeared to be watching him for "about half a minute." (Schiavo's autopsy, performed two weeks after Cheshire's visit, concluded she was cortically blind.)

FuelWagon

Duckecho

Patsw

A ghost - Needs the affidavit link, though. (I added it to the actual article. FuelWagon 19:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC))

NCdave - I don't like either one, but JonGwynn's is worse.

---

discussion below, voting above

---

I'm sure you know my opinion. I tried to guide Jon along a couple of times on a neutral and subtle way of making the case, much as you have made it. Yours is good, his gets reverted every time I see it. I was afraid of being labeled an ass for doing it, but I'm getting plenty of those accolades without even reverting anything. Hell, even when I am reverting something that the anti-Terry people want I get castigated. Duckecho 01:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jon isn't reporting a dispute that Thogmartin raised or was published in the news media but making an argument which since it appears without a cite appears to be his very own original research. Encyclopedias are not discussion boards. He's welcome to make his argument against Cheshire’s credibility on a discussion board of his own choosing. As I've mentioned before, the pre-Jon wording from Duckecho and FuelWagon presents the facts without coloring Cheshire's competence or credibility. patsw 02:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not "his" or "my" version, but there are varied elements, and I shall comment on them individually:

The first version is attributed to Jon Gwynn (but the diff shows Viriditas and ChrisO), but I'll assume (for the same of simplicity), Wagon, that you're correct and that this is Jon's version. The top sentence says: "During his visit, he [Cheshire] observed what he interpreted to be purposeful behavior, as when he stated that Schiavo appeared to be watching him for "about half a minute." Cheshire's affidavit said he believed he had found reason to doubt the PVS diagnosis and to prefer a diagnosis of "minimally conscious state" or MCS. Based on Cheshire's affidavit, Governor Jeb Bush filed a petition to have Schiavo's feeding tube restored." (and cites the PDF file affidavit on the DCF's website) GORDON ANALYSIS: This all is factual; I don't see the problem so far.

The next quote you dispute says: "Schiavo's autopsy [48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo#Autopsy)(performed two weeks after Cheshire's visit) found nothing inconsistent with the diagnosis of PVS and concluded that there was sufficient extensive damage to her brain to have rendered her incapable of the responses Cheshire described." GORDON ANALYSIS: Persistent vegetative state is a clinical diagnosis made on a living individual, and a medical examiner can not make this determination by merely examining a corpse. (PVS is hard enough to determine with any accuracy in LIVING individuals, so the "hype" that the autopsy proved -or disproved -PVS is just that: Hype: [5] [6], (citing Andrews, Keith, "Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit") Thus, is not incorrect to say the autopsy found nothing inconsistent with PVS. (PS: I believe the autopsy stated that Terri was given morphine for pain. This rebuts the assertion that Terri was PVS.)

Now, as far as the statement: "...and concluded that there was sufficient extensive damage to her brain to have rendered her incapable of the responses Cheshire described," I ask: Did Thogmartin really conclude this? If so, quote him, and cite the link for the autopsy. I can't find the autopsy link in the Wiki article. What's up with that?

Lastly, Wagon asks for feedback on his version: Looks OK, except that you need to actually QUOTE Thogmartin if he said something about alleged cortical blindness, not merely paraphrase. And, cite your source, namely the autopsy, not a news article, which sometimes misquotes. You don't have any problem quoting the doctor and putting a link in to his autopsy do you?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"you need to actually QUOTE Thogmartin" Absolutely not. That is not a wikipedia rule. It is perfectly acceptable to paraphrase and simplify as long as the original point of view is maintained. Otherwise, every sentence in an article would have to be in quotes. FuelWagon 18:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a second; I didn't say that the rules mandated this; What I really mean is that this is my opinion that you need to quote him, given the particular amount of debate and disagreement over this particular issue. It is only my view, but I think it is the best route. Alternatively, however, if you choose to paraphrase him, please provide a link, preferably on a stable server. Could we upload the autopsy report to Wikipedia in the same way Abstract Appeal uploads documents like this all the time? Also, why did you indent so many spaces? (I fixed that; see the diff.)--GordonWattsDotCom 18:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It isn't original research. I am simply reporting the contents of the autopsy report and how they contradict Cheshire's statements which were, as reported by others, the basis of different political and legal actions by various elected officials and which are now known to have been incorrect... as, by extension, were the actions of the various elected officials. It is not only appropriate to "color" Cheshire's credibility but necessary to point out that he was wrong. Why he was wrong, we'll have to leave that to the imagination of those readers who care to speculate about this, but that he was wrong is incontrovertible fact. And, petulant insistences to the contrary notwithstanding, Cheshire's mistake/wishful-thinking is relevant to the issue. --JonGwynne 16:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not calling it original research. It's just that the autopsy not finding anything disputing PVS diagnosis isn't the same as the autopsy proving the PVS diagnosis. Since the autopsy doesn't prove the PVS diagnosis, mentioning that it "doesn't dispute PVS" is sort of saying "the autopsy says it could go either way". The point I keep trying to make is that there is a difference between finding evidence that proves something is true, and NOT finding evidence that proves something false. The autopsy report quote says it didn't find any evidence to prove PVS false. That doesn't actually counter Cheshire's MCS diagnosis, but your version presents it as a different point of view even though the autopsy effectively says "we can't prove either diagnosis". The autopsy DOES say Terri was cortically blind, so that is a different point of view than Cheshires, which is why I think that ought to go in. But "not disputing PVS" actually allows for the possibility of MCS as a legitimate diagnosis. Do you see the difference? FuelWagon 18:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that the autopsy didn't prove or disprove PVS but then it was never going to. As the report points out, PVS is a clinical diagnosis, not a pathological one. However, in the Quinlan case where the diagnosis of PVS was undisputed, the brain-damage was far less severe. --JonGwynne 07:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dr. John Lorber studied dozens of patients who had above-average IQs despite having much greater brain loss than either Terri Schiavo or Karen Quinlan had. Terri's brain damage was very severe, but not too severe for consciousness. NCdave 08:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing brain loss by volume with the nature of the brain loss. Dr. Lorber's research (has it been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet?) was on people who had small but otherwise normally functioning cerebrae. This distinguishes them immediately from Terri Schiavo whose brain tissue was dead and actually degenerating. --JonGwynne 17:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both versions are poor and POV-biased, because in any balanced discussion of the disagreement between Cheshire and Thogmartin about Terri's ability to see, there should be mention of the numerous other witnesses who attested to her visual responsiveness, and the conclusive videotaped proof that Terri sometimes responded to visual stimuli and so could not have been completely blind.

The claim that Terri responded to visual stimuli is simply not true. There were assumptions by experts and laypersons alike that she had responded but it was never able to be confirmed beacuse there was no way to confirm it. Subsequently, it has been proved to be impossible that she responded to visual stimuli because the portion of the brain required for such a response was incapable of processing the visual stimuli. The only possibly conclusion from this is that the people who claimed that Terri responded were mistaken. --JonGwynne 17:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But Fuelwagon's version is certainly better than JonGwynn's. Fuelwagon's version says nothing that is not true. JonGwynn's version is simply untrue: it is the equivalent of saying that the autopsy "found" that Cheshire was a liar, because "the responsese Cheshire described" witnessing could not have actually happened. But the autopsy report does not say that. The only form of responsiveness that it disputes is Cheshire's well-corroborated report that she had vision. The report does not dispute his description of her intermittant responsiveness to other stimuli, including recognition and appropriate response to spoken English.

That is also incorrect. Because someone made a statement that is later found to be incorrect does not necessarily mean that they were lying. They may simply have been mistaken. I have repeatedly stated that it is inappropriate to acribe motive to Cheshire's statments but simply to point out that they could not have been accurate. --JonGwynne 17:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the article is to say that the autopsy report didn't dispute the PVS diagnosis, then it should also say that the autopsy didn't dispute the MCS diagnosis. Otherwise, the phrasing is POV-biased. The autopsy report gave equal credence to both diagnoses, so the Wikipedia article's description of what the report said about the two diagnoses must do likewise to be NPOV.

No, actually, the report did not give "equal credence" to both diagnoses. In fact, the report specifically distinguishes between the clinical diagnoses of PVS and the pathological examination which the autopsy represents. However, the report does point out that the nature of Terri's brain damage was not only consistent with other patients whose diagnosis of PVS was uncontested but more severe. In other words, what other PVS patients have had, Terri had it worse. --JonGwynne 17:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The autopsy report is precisely neutral on the issue of whether or not she was conscious. It says:

"The persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state, are clinical diagnoses, not pathologic ones. ... Neuropathologic examination alone of the decedent's brain ... cannot prove or disprove a diagnosis of persistent begetative state or minimally conscious state."

IMO, the M.Schaivo supporters should be relieved, because the autopsy report didn't mention the third diagnosis, which quite a few doctors supported: that she was most likely not just "minimally" conscious, but more than minimally conscious. NCdave 08:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This one is easy to decide on Wiki principles apart from the specifics of the Schiavo case. The article is not a dicussion board or Soapbox to push personal arguments, theories, disputes, etc. which Jon's POV with respect to Cheshire's credibility clearly is. Editors include disputes (such as the Schindlers not being notified of the burial of Terri's ashes), because it's accurate, relevant and significant in the non-Wiki world. It's not the editors job here to construct an alternate reality with its own set of alternate disputes. Report on disputes, don't create them. patsw 13:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dave (and others with firm beliefs), a while back I had to come to grips with that fact that the majority of editors would never come to agree with one of the key issues in my POV on this case. You can become a truly effective advocate of that perspective by letting go of your pride, and using your passion to illuminate bias, as you started doing above. It's a good start. Alot of us understand the impulse, but we must give some of our entrenched issues up to whatever higher power.--ghost 13:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I want is for the article to be truthful and unbiased. Right now it is grossly inaccurate and severely biased. NCdave 18:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eight doctors examined Schiavo...

The opening paragraph of the article currently says, in part:

"Eight doctors examined Schiavo. Six (her family physician, three doctors selected by the courts, and two selected by Michael) diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state. Two guardians ad litem concurred with this decision. The two remaining doctors (both selected by Schiavo's parents) dissented, arguing that Schiavo was in a 'minimally conscious state.'

Consider the numerous inaccuracies and examples of POV bias in just that little snippet:

• It invents two non-existent doctors "selected by the courts" who (supposedly) diagnosed her to be in a PVS. (I first pointed out this problem weeks ago, and nobody expressed disagreement with me, and nobody was able to identify the two mystery doctors... but the false statement remains in the article.)
• It ignores the disagreement between Judge Greer and his chosen doctor, Peter Bambakidis. Even Bambakidis did not rule out the possibility that Terri was conscious. He said only that a "preponderance of evidence" (the weakest evidentiary standard) supported PVS.
• It omits the Cheshire diagnosis, that Terri was probably in a MCS.
• It hides the fact that the so-called "family physician" was actually part of the M.Schiavo/Felos-selected team working for Terri's demise.
• It omits mention of the numerous affidavits from other doctors who disagreed with the PVS diagnosis. The Schindlers were only allowed to have two doctors examine Terri, ever. Even that was allowed only because a higher court ordered it -- Greer didn't want them to have even that opportunity. Yet, the evidence of Terri's consciousness was so compelling that, nevertheless, dozens of doctors came forward and swore that in their professional opinions, based on the evidence available, the PVS diagnosis was flawed.
• It omits the fact that the autopsy refuted the Cranford/Felos/M.Schiavo contention that she could not have been conscious because her cerebral cortex had been replaced by spinal fluid.
• It omits the fact that the autopsy report gave equal credence to the PVS and MCS hypotheses.
• It puts scare quotes around the MCS diagnosis.
• It includes non-expert GAL (lawyer) opinions in favor of the PVS diagnosis, which is circular, because those opinions were supposedly based on the doctors' opinions (though GAL Wolfson had proven a bias against Terri before his appointment as GAL, by expressing his opinion (on television!) that she should be allowed to die). Yet it...
• ...omits mention of the sworn testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, corroborated by video recordings of her behavior, that Terri was intermittently responsive to a variety of different stimuli, which is incompatible with a diagnosis of PVS.

The fact is that no doctor who examined Terri without being vetted by M.Schiavo/Felos expressed certainty that she was in a Persistent Vegetative State, and only one such doctor thought it even probable (presumably because he only saw her for 30 minutes; because he had been told, falsely, that she had no remaining cerebral cortex; and because he had no prior experience or special expertise treating or diagnosing PVS patients).

I know that if I fix the article, I'll be instantly reverted, as usual, by one of the M.Schaivo supporters. But can we all agree, at least, that these problems justify a {{npov}} warning tag on the article? NCdave 18:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Virtually your entire premise is fallacious. There is utterly no point in discussing it with you becuause you will then play Whack-a-mole and completely divert the discussion. In any event these subjects and your erroneous interpretation of them have been rebutted many times before. I reverted your NPOV tag. You surrendered any credibilty you might have had in lobbying for it when you earlier asserted that the article is also far from accurate yet you were willing to capitulate your integrity and compromise to solely the NPOV tag. Duckecho 19:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dave, my Grandfather served in Casper Wienberger's cabinet, and was the staunchest Republican I've known. He taught me, "A good compromise is one nobody likes." So, if you don't like it, maybe that why it's good. 'Cuz we don't either. Now knock it off.--ghost 20:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A good Wikipedia article is one that evenhandedly presents both sides of a disputed issue. This Wikipedia article presents the POV of the pro-Michael/anti-Schindler side of every disputed point. I have never advocated making the article reflect Terri's family's POV, even though that's the side of the angels. Rather, I advocate making the article evenhandly and honestly present both sides. As long as this article does not do that, do not expect me to "knock it off." NCdave 22:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, "the side of the angels"? I assume you've got statements from actual angels to back up this claim. If not, spare us the hyperbole. --JonGwynne 23:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pearse's report, page 2, paragraph 2, states: Terri has been neurologically evaluated several times, the latest being Jeffery Karp, who diagnosed Terri as PVS. Does anyone have a list of who the other doctors of several were? This might bring the count way past six. Was Karp assigned by the courts? Is there a list of who the several are? FuelWagon 28 June 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Mention of the February 25 2005 Greer final order (effective March 18 2005)

How did all mention of this final order get expunged? I will add a summary of its text. patsw 14:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shoot!! Did something bad happen? I was looking at the top of this talk page, at the mediation page and those links in the amber boxes, when I accidentally clicked the "purge" link. I immediately clicked back, and didn't see anything wrong, so I'd hoped nothing happened. It appears I may indeed have caused some damage. I'm a real newbie when it comes to the technical side of Wiki; I hope I didn't do something irremediable?? I'm very, very sorry! ~ Neuroscientist 14:42, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't do anything I'm aware of. I think he's referring to a section in the article. There wasn't anything on that subject in the talk page before. If you click on the "history" button of any page you'll see a record of any change along with a date/time stamp, links to previous and current versions (diffs), and the user who made the change. I think you're in the clear. The only two times your name shows up in either history is for the two posts you've made to Talk which includes this one and your maiden post (as it were). Duckecho

Archived

Talk page archived again (past the 300k mark of doom). Anything you have to bring back to the main talk page, please just bring back any cogent and relevant bits, rather than a whole section, as some of them are massive in themselves and just going round in circles. Proto 10:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I put the list of archived pages on its own page, as they themselves had got to take up more than a page. Proto 10:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not archive active discussion threads! It is much better to have a large Talk page than it is to interrupt an ongoing discussion. If there have been contributions to a topic in the last few days, then do not archive it. NCdave 15:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said, Dave, please feel free to bring back anything you feel is still relevant, cogent and has a reason to be on the main talk page. I have made no judgments of what is or is not viable/relevant. It is unfeasible and unreasonable to have 350k + of threads active. Proto 15:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and NCdave will make sure to add something to each thread to keep the seeds of doubt alive for all eternity. FuelWagon 15:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amid the minefields of acrimony, I want to take especial note of the efforts of Proto in taking on the enormous task of archiving in all of its forms. Thank you, sir. Duckecho 16:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If some people didn't post Declaration of Independence-esque rants, maybe the talk page wouldn't be 300k. Just my two cents. Mike H 16:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Although I prefer to think of my posts as more Gettysburg Address–ish (in length, not content), your point is well taken. Duckecho 17:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

autopsy comment

where did this come from? FuelWagon 17:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The loss in weight was determined to have been caused not by the brain shrinking in volume (through dehydration or some other cause), but through an actual loss of brain matter.

Chris O in [13:28, 23 Jun 2005]. At my suggestion he reworded it from [12:31, 23 Jun 2005]; not that I think it's all that much better. Duckecho 18:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what atrophy means. It means reduction in mass (weight).

Terri had severe brain damage, as evidenced by the fact that her brain was atrophied (reduced in mass) to the extent that she had a brain mass at death of only about half that of a typical adult female, which is less than 70% of the low end of the "normal" range. Terri's brain damage was most severe toward the rear of her brain, and especially the occipital lobes (areas responsible for vision). The damage was least severe in the frontal and temporal lobes, the areas responsible for cognition and consciousness.

Dehydration does reduce brain mass[7], but dehydration could have accounted for only a small portion of the atrophy of Terri's brain.

The autopsy report stated that it was impossible to determine from her autopsy whether or not she had been conscious. NCdave 13:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. If I must...

I said in my response to NCdave above that I wasn't going to rebut him, but Ghost put a section NPOV tag on the intro, which I think is unwarranted, so I'll go ahead and rebut and steel myself for 1000 words of off topic regurgitation afterwards. Then I'll revert the NPOV tag later.

• It invents two non-existent doctors "selected by the courts" who (supposedly) diagnosed her to be in a PVS. (I first pointed out this problem weeks ago, and nobody expressed disagreement with me, and nobody was able to identify the two mystery doctors... but the false statement remains in the article.)

• It's an introduction. It is not necessary or desirable to lay out the entire history of the case in the intro when it is done completely and to infinite degree later in the article. I will concede that "selected by the courts" may not be correct. Considered by the courts is closer to accurate and I support changing it to read that. If that is your quibble, then it does not remotely rise to the level of inaccurate and it certainly isn't biased.

I dug through the article and found the names of most of teh doctors and inserted them in teh intro in embedded notes. I'm missing one name. FuelWagon 21:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

in 1998, Pearse reported "Dr. Karp's opinion of the ward's condition and prognosis is substantially shared among those physicians who have recently been involved in her treatment." The word "physicians" is plural. I'm wondering if there's some more doctors behind that word that we don't have names for. FuelWagon 04:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It ignores the disagreement between Judge Greer and his chosen doctor, Peter Bambakidis. Even Bambakidis did not rule out the possibility that Terri was conscious. He said only that a "preponderance of evidence" (the weakest evidentiary standard) supported PVS.

• Bambakidis was under no requirement to give a medical opinion to any particular level of evidentiary standard so far as I know. It is typical when expert witnesses give opinions in court that they are couched in terms such as in your expert opinoin and to the generally recognized medical standards.

• It omits the Cheshire diagnosis, that Terri was probably in a MCS.

• Cheshire did not testify in court. His affadivit is irrelevant. However, it is covered later in the article. It doesn't need to be in the intro.

• It hides the fact that the so-called "family physician" was actually part of the M.Schiavo/Felos-selected team working for Terri's demise.

• This is a statement you want to support your assertion? What are we to make of the opinion of a physician in the employ of the Guardian? That he is on the team? Absurd.

• It omits mention of the numerous affidavits from other doctors who disagreed with the PVS diagnosis. The Schindlers were only allowed to have two doctors examine Terri, ever. Even that was allowed only because a higher court ordered it -- Greer didn't want them to have even that opportunity. Yet, the evidence of Terri's consciousness was so compelling that, nevertheless, dozens of doctors came forward and swore that in their professional opinions, based on the evidence available, the PVS diagnosis was flawed.

• All the numerous affidavits are irrelevant. Initially there were doctors who diagnosed PVS. When the Schindlers appealed and got 2nd DCA to order a trial on the facts, they had their opportunity to select the best neurologists money could buy available. Despite the court's instruction they selected a radiologist. And they selected Hammesfahr. They didn't even get the doctor whose opinion led 2nd DCA to order the trial in the first place to testify. Even 2nd DCA (when they got the case again) was mystified. Life is full of choices; those were theirs. Claiming Greer didn't want anything is pure supposition, POV, and far from accurate.

• It omits the fact that the autopsy refuted the Cranford/Felos/M.Schiavo contention that she could not have been conscious because her cerebral cortex had been replaced by spinal fluid.

• Irrelevant. Straw man fallacy.

• It omits the fact that the autopsy report gave equal credence to the PVS and MCS hypotheses.

• Belongs later in the article, not in the intro. That isn't reason enough to flag the section NPOV.

• It puts scare quotes around the MCS diagnosis.

• Easily fixed. I'll do it myself. Not reason enough to flag the section NPOV.

• It includes non-expert GAL (lawyer) opinions in favor of the PVS diagnosis, which is circular, because those opinions were supposedly based on the doctors' opinions (though GAL Wolfson had proven a bias against Terri before his appointment as GAL, by expressing his opinion (on television!) that she should be allowed to die). Yet it...

• Some of your propositions are just beyond need for refutation.

• ...omits mention of the sworn testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, corroborated by video recordings of her behavior, that Terri was intermittently responsive to a variety of different stimuli, which is incompatible with a diagnosis of PVS.

• If they have any relevance at all, they don't belong in the intro. If you are talking about Cheshire, various assorted doctors, and Iyer, et al, they did not provide sworn testimony. They submitted sworn affidavits, however they did not testify and were not subject to cross examination. There's a difference.

That does it. I've convinced myself. I'll wait for a while to see how long it is before the NPOV tag comes out. I predict it won't be long. You haven't remotely made a case. Duckecho 20:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record: I agree that the both the NPOV and NPOV-section tages are unwarranted. And (forgive my language) they piss me off. I've have discussed why on numerous occasions, and I continue to believe that they are a blatant slap in the face to every editor on this article, including NCDave. But since I don't have time to examine this further now, the section flag is a challenge for NCDave to fix that section. Put up, or shut up, Dave.--ghost 20:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)