Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

POV Discussion

I added the fact that most of her cortex is gone, as the citation states. Saying the whole cortex is gone is misleading.

---MDW

My sincere apologies. I'd heard this claim misstated elsewhere, and I must have simply repeated the faulty claim without carefully examining the blog's statement. However, we now have a more serious problem--NCDave is trying to cast doubt on the claim that much of Schiavo's cerebral cortex is missing, which I don't believe the Schindlers or their doctors have ever actually disputed. He's coming close to escalating this into an edit war, and I am now firmly of the opinion, expressed by others on this page, that his POV style of editing cannot be stopped unless the requests to have it stop are backed by some sort of authority. I'll start a new section on this, however. SS451 03:42, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell said that "the smart man says one thing, and the stupid men translate that into something their minds can understand." That's what happened here: Everyone who is screaming for this dead person to continue to be artificially maintained is absolutely and certainly (and most unfortunately) religious.

I am not sure how you claim everyone who supports keeping Terri alive is religious. I am an atheist and I see the actions on both sides illogical. The core issue is the diagosis, that she is PVS. There has been lot of medical experts who claim otherwise and it is accepted, that PVS s a difficult diagnosis to make with very high probablity of error. How do you claim that she is already dead (no consciousness) when that is part of the core issue being debated ?

--AA

To offer a little clarity: a long, long time ago, before science had developed and the mind was still primitive, the world was difficult to explain. So, people began to worship the planets, the stars, trees, mountains, animals and such. As the human mind evolved, the propensity for anthropomorphism developed as well. Suddenly, there were gods too. It didn't take too long to make a war of it: "my god/gods is/are better than your god/gods," etc...

The next thing that happened is that even though the average individual remained fairly stupid, they began to believe that they knew "the truth": an immaterial subjective, perceptual POV. Most of them are still unwilling to accept reality. They prefer faith, but faith has no fact. Of course, the rest of us know that god is dead. Not it was ever alive.

Since Merriam-Webster is probably the best comprehensive source for the English language, I have included this definition, which I'm sure you excluded purposely since it did not fit your (NCdave) intent:

2vegetable Function: noun 1 : a usually herbaceous plant (as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part; also : such an edible part 2 : a person whose mental and physical functioning is severely impaired and especially who requires supportive measures (as intravenous feeding or mechanical ventilation) to survive

This woman is already dead. She couldn't even think "Ouch!," if you gave her a vivisection. cyboar 05:43, 20 Mar 2005 (PST)

Cybor, It looks like you are basing your arguments on the claim that she has no consciousness. It is one of the disputed points. Hence your description has POV. --AA

Despite this, after reading the article, I think there's a lot of POV in it on both sides.

The photo - the first bit of POVness that hit me was the selection of a photo. When I saw Terri on television she looked quite different from the way that photo depicts her. It would be nice if we could have some other photos in addition to this one. Adding a moving picture would be great.
"vegetative state" - I don't see why this has to be mentioned so early in the article. Whether or not the state she is in can be considered "vegetative" is important only in the realm of the legal fights that are going on (apparently, the article doesn't really go into why the word matters at all). Personally I think it'd probably be best to just leave the word out of it. It doesn't matter whether or not her state is "vegetative". Just describe the state and let people make their own decision.

"vegetable" is a disparaging term used to describe the mentally handicapped. "vegetative state" is a medical and legal term of varying definition, which is derived from that slur. NCdave 17:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where's your proof of that?Iceberg3k 13:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I included a link to a dictionary definition, in the material that Fox1 deleted from the Talk page. But here are a few more:

Oxford English Dictionary says, "vegetable. noun. ... 2, informal, derogatory a person who is incapable of normal mental or physical activity, especially through brain damage."

Encarta says, "vegetable. noun. ... 3. offensive term: an offensive term for somebody in whom normal functions are severely reduced or absent, often as a result of injury to the brain"

American Heritage / Bartleby says, "vegetable. NOUN: ... 2. Offensive Slang One who is severely impaired mentally and physically, as by brain injury or disease."

But where is your proof that the medical/legal term "vegetative state" came from the slur "vegetable," as opposed to a more logical sequence of events, in which the slur is derived from the formal term? If I'm not mistaken, that is/was the case with the term "retarded," for example. SS451 02:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

"death by starvation" - I think this is currently handled well. In the beginning, the description is "...woman whose husband's efforts to remove her feeding tube and forbid anyone from attempting to feed her by mouth..." In the end, the sentence reads "Removal of Terri's feeding tube would result in her death by starvation." Now, of course, I'm assuming the latter sentence is actually true. Would she die from starvation, or dehydration?

Actually, she might not die at all, if her family were permitted to spoon-feed her, though it would be better to gradually wean her from the feeding tube during rehabilitative therapy. NCdave 17:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What rehabilitation? She's brain-dead, you can't rehabilitate that.Iceberg3k 13:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

One of the very few things that all parties to the case agree on is that she is most definitely not brain dead. A brain dead person cannot even breathe on his own. NCdave 01:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although she might not be braindead, she does not have a functioning cerebral cortex at this point. All sides have agreed on that. As she does not have a functioning cerebral cortex, she also does not have any higher brain function. If she was spoon-fed, she would more than likely choke on the food and/or drink. --24.34.94.87 08:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"estranged husband" - I don't see much purpose to mentioning that term at all. How does that give us a better understanding of the situation? On the other hand, I think the fact that the husband "become involved and fathered children with another woman since Terri became handicapped" needs to be made more prominent and explained in more detail. They said on the news that there is going to be an appeal on the grounds that Terri should have the right to have a divorce. Some more information about this would be interesting.

It looks like most of the rest has been worked out. anthony 警告 05:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The major reason is because her family has not been taking care of her and will not - we the taxpayers will.

Thanks for the comments. I added dehydration - it looks like either could cause death, but a doctor may want to clarify this point. I agree with all the points you've brought up. The photo was added by NCdave and is used on several pro-life web sites. I agree that it's not ideal. It's also probably a copyright violation. Vegetative state: Yes, it would be much better to describe her state without trying to say definitively whether it is "vegetative". "Estranged": We've been going back and forth over this and NCdave refuses to concede that his reference from a "learner's dictionary" doesn't mean that "estranged" is a neutral word. Agree that details of Michael Schiavo's extramarital relationship should be expanded. I'm not sure if the divorce thing needs to be mentioned, the Schindler family files a lot of motions (15 today). Although if the divorce motion gets press coverage it should be included. Rhobite 06:18, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite doesn't like the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which says:

"estranged. adjective. 1 describes a husband or wife who is not now living with the person they are married to: his estranged wife."

Here's the Cambridge Dictionary of American English definition:

"estranged. adjective. (of a husband or wife) not living with the person they are married to"[1]

Here's Encarta's definition:

"estranged adjective. separated from a spouse: no longer living with a husband or wife"[2]

The word "estranged," when applied to spouses, simply means that they don't live together anymore. It does not say anything about the cause, which could be alienation or mere indifference. However, the word can also be applied more generally to other relationships, including even business relationships, to indicate removal from a close association, whether due to alienation or indifference. (The Cambridge dictionaries and Encarta don't happen to mention that use of the word, but some of the other dictionaries do.)

To edit the article and change "estranged husband" to just plain "husband" when describing Michael Schiavo is to inject POV bias. One cannot understand the outrageousness of the Greer decisions and Michael Schiavo's actions if one does not know that Terri and Michael are estranged. Numerous press accounts have simply described him as her "husband," with no indication that their marriage has, for all intents and purposes, actually been over for more than a decade, and that (according to sworn testimony from two witnesses) even before her injury Terri had told friends of her intention to divorce him. NCdave 17:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite doesn't like the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which says. I think we should formally ban using dictionary definitions in any talk page discussions. What Cambridge has to say about the meaning of a word, besides itself being POV, does not matter.

Words have meanings, and the meanings matter, and dictionaries are the authorities on the meanings of words. If you are going to formally ban dictionary definitions, why not formally ban all facts, and ensure that wikipedia is completely useless? NCdave 01:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To edit the article and change "estranged husband" to just plain "husband" when describing Michael Schiavo is to inject POV bias. One cannot understand the outrageousness of the Greer decisions and Michael Schiavo's actions if one does not know that Terri and Michael are estranged. But according to you estranged simply means they don't live together. Haven't we already covered that when we said that Terri lives in a hospice? It seemed pretty obvious to me that the husband wasn't living in the hospice with her.

Funny, Anthony. :-) NCdave 01:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Numerous press accounts have simply described him as her "husband," with no indication that their marriage has, for all intents and purposes, actually been over for more than a decade, and that (according to sworn testimony from two witnesses) even before her injury Terri had told friends of her intention to divorce him. Certainly we must include the facts which lead you to this conclusion. We certainly should mention that the husband has been living with another woman since 1995 and that he has two children with that other woman. I just don't see why the insistence on using the term "estranged". anthony 警告 03:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo

Pending consensus, I'm going to chop out all the stuff about Michael Schiavo. My reasoning being that this is the article about Terri Schiavo - a lot of the stuff about her husband is irrelevant character smearing. Obviously some detail is pertinent, but not the extended commentary currently on the page.

MichelleG 12:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

I find that just bizarre. The man is trying to have his estranged wife KILLED, and you don't think his character is relevant? The fact IS that she was planning to leave him (or so she had said to others), on the day of her injury the couple had been fighting all day (says her close girlfriend), numerous other people have testified to his history of violent temper and erratic behavior, medical records that he kept hidden from her family for 10 years show that she had had numerous previously unknown traumatic injuries, police records show that he lied about where and how he found her body, etc., etc.. And you don't think that is RELEVANT?? Good heavens, do you have any idea what the "N" in NPOV stands for??NCdave 18:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Something occurs to me: If Michael Schiavo was abusive as Terri's self-styled defenders claim, then why haven't any allegations of abuse come from his present lover? I'm not an expert, but I seem to recall that abuse is a pattern of personal behavior, and an abuser is likely to continue to abuse in subsequent relationships. Iceberg3k 13:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please try and restrict comments and discussion to matters pertaining to updating and improving the article, not conjecture on the issues involved. Fox1 13:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a good question, Iceberg3k. A similar question is why Terri, herself, never filed charges against him while married to him, if he was abusing her. I don't know the answer. However, a previous girlfriend, Cindy Shook, is terrified of Michael Schiavo, and it is very common for women to silently put up with spousal abuse. NCdave 01:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove discussion of Michael Schiavo in this article. It's relevant to the topic. Feel free to point out NPOV problems (value judgments), though. Rhobite 19:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Unless you're going to move it to a separate page (and prominently link to it), it is a terrible idea to remove information about Michael Schiavo. I for one came to this page to read about the whole controversy. I agree pretty firmly with NCdave on this one. The whole point of NPOV is to present all sides to the story. Saying that one part of the story is irrelevent is terribly POV. anthony 警告 05:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see all sides, you'll need to look at some of the deleted versions of this article. Most of what I've contributed has been deleted by Michael Schiavo's partisans, including links to the most comprehensive series of third-party articles on this topic that I've yet found, the 14 articles by the Discovery Institute's Wesley Smith. The current version of the article is severely POV-biased; this one is relatively NPOV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&oldid=10668866 (see the "external links" section for the Wesley Smith articles). NCdave 16:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Drop it, since most "information" about Michael Schiavo contain gross character smears, as MichelleG points out. Wesley Smith's articles are op-ed, as well as most all of the terrisfight.org website. I assume the assertion about "medical records that he kept hidden from her family for 10 years " per above refers to the bone scan report. But that is factually inaccurate, as the bone scan report was never hidden, despite claims by the parents [3]

--Bill 00:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is very persuasive evidence that Terri was the victim of spousal abuse, even before her injury, and one of the most damning piece of evidence is that 1991 bone scan report [4], which Terri's family did not see until 2002. NCdave 12:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm -- I seem to recall having heard that that damage could've also been caused by bulemia, etcetera. Can anyone else enlighten?--24.34.94.87 08:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The original diagnosis was that her condition was caused by her bulemia. I think that some people are confusing the issue of whether or not a guardian has the right to make certain medical decisions versus whether or not Michael Schiavo is a suitable guardian for his wife. If you don't believe that anyone has the right to have feeding tubes removed from another person, then it is irrelevant whether or not Michael Schiavo is/was a good husband. If you agree that a well-intentioned guardian has that right, but suspect that MS ought to be disqualified, than the argument should be centering around the issue of custody and the accusations against him should be examined and resolved. To argue that a guardian would have the right, but we are barring it in this case due to unsubstantiated claims is to make this already difficult situation chaotic. Anyone who disagreed with a decision could highjack the authority by alleging malice without having to prove it. (Note that I do not take a position on MS's fitness as a guardian.)152.163.100.9 23:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link Cleanup

I did a little autumn cleaning on the links, in honour of it not being summer for a few minutes now:

The first three laws are all hard links with good data. I kept them.

The Village Voice articles are rather good, but the way they are formatted was bad. I've condensed it all onto one line.

Fine. -NCdave

The "Physical Abuse Haunts Michael Schiavo", aside from being obvious propoganda, adds nothing that doesn't appear in the other links.

It isn't propaganda, it is highly pertinant information. Please restore it, or I will. -NCdave

WorldNetDaily is a pretty horribly far-right news site, but I left the article in since it's reasonably well written, and to maintain balance.

Well, "horribly far-right" certainly tells us what YOUR pov is. -NCdave

The freep.com editorial isn't all that good, but there needs to be some compensating POV in here somewhere. Perhaps when better sources for this issue and side are found, this can be removed.

Agreed. I don't believe in deleting the "other side's" arguments. -NCdave.

The next two links are propoganda with no new facts. Removed.

The disability-rights activist site is irrelevant to this topic, and I removed it. The same goes for the rambling monologue of Stephen Drake. The Wesley J. Smith articles are less "references" than "blatant propoganda", which add nothing to the discussion except a whole bunch of vitriol. I removed them.

You deleted the links to the most comprehensive information, and all the information from one of the world's most renowned experts on the topic. That is nothing less than massive POV sabatoge. NCdave 19:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This gets things down to a VERY manageable set of six links. Given that there seems to be clear consensus for changes to the rather tatty, messy collection that we had before, given that the list keeps getting cut down to size, I'm going to go ahead and do a little pruning. I'll try to watch this section like a hawk to ensure that it doesn't become bloated with irrelevant links once more.

MichelleG 13:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Michelle, I added links to the "Terri Schiavo Information Page", a blog by a Florida lawyer who has tried to stick to the legal issues. I also added a link to the December 2003 report of Jay Wolfson, guardian ad litem, who was appointed to prepare a report as a result of "Terri's Law" His chronology alone of the case is excellent, which is not something I can say about the article. That is something that needs substantial attention. --Bill 01:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look at all the disability rights organizations who are on this list of organizations who filed or joined in Amici Curiae briefs in Terri's defense: Center for Human Life and Bioethics at the Family Research Council, Not Dead Yet, Adapt, The ARC of the United States, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University, Center on Self Determination, Disability Rights Center, Freedom Clearinghouse, Hospice Patients' Alliance, Mouth Magazine, National Council on Independent Living, National Disabled Students Union, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered, Society for Disability Studies, TASH, World Association of Persons With Disabilities and World Institute on Disability, Academy of Florida Elder Law Attorneys, Inc., the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, plus 55 Bioethicists. Obviously disability-rights is not an irrelevant issue in the fight over Terri Schiavo's fate. NCdave 20:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the italicized summaries of the externally linked articles. They were insanely not NPOV, and also not part of standard Wiki practice. You've fought your battle to get the links you want on the page. Just let them speak for themselves, please. Tcassedy 09:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I recall, the "italicized summaries" were actually mostly (or maybe entirely?) just the subtitles from the articles themselves, not my editorializing, but I'll accept this. NCdave 04:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just did a little survey of the featured external links. I counted nine links that are essentially neutral--they provide information, and do not appear to feature any of the more outlandish accusations or claims, usually "Michael beat Terri" thing. In this category fell the statements of the two guardians ad litem, despite the fact that they do reach conclusions about Terri's situation, as did links to the text of the decision by the Florida Supreme Court voiding Terri's Law, as well as the text of Terri's Law itself.

I counted thirteen links that oppose the removal of Terri's nutritional tube, some of which also attack Michael Schiavo in harsh terms. It should be noted that for this category, I counted both the four Village Voice articles and the fourteen (!) Wesley J. Smith editorials as one anti-removal source each.

I counted two editorials/articles in favor of Michael Schiavo's position, that is, that Terri's feeding tube ought to be removed. Given that anti-removal sources outnumber both neutral informational resources and pro-removal editorials combined, what we have here is at least the appearance of a problem. I notice that earlier in the discussion, some of these links have been red-flagged, but that NCDave has, by and large, refused to allow any of the anti-removal links to be excised.

As a preliminary matter to fixing what appears to be a bias towards external linking to anti-removal sites in this article, I would suggest that we first organize these links into the three categories that I describe, as the long, disorganized list we currently have is simply confusing and a little daunting. If NCDave wants to dispute any of my classifications, he's welcome to do so, but I think that anyone reading those links with an open mind would come up with a count that is very similar to mine. SS451 03:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Here is my proposed revision of the External Links section. I'll also note that one of the two links in support of Michael Schiavo's position (or at least described as opposing Terri's Law) was broken, so that leaves thirteen anti-removal links and one pro-removal link. I haven't read that last, a Baltimore Sun editorial, because the site requires registration, but I've given the descriptor included with the link the benefit of the doubt. Proposed organization follows:

Ugh! That's terrible!!

The Disability Rights sites are far less biased for Terri than the Greer decisions are against Terri! Greer is practically indistinguishable from Felos. The St. Pete Times is consistently anti-Terri, too.

GAL Wolfson was also obviously biased against Terri, since before he was appointed GAL he was quoted in the local press as saying that he thought that Terri's feeding tube should be removed (though, in spite of this bias, and to his credit, after visiting Terri he nevertheless recommended further testing before ceasing her feeding -- testing which Michael Schiavo & Felos & Greer refused to permit).

SO if you're going to divide the list into pro & anti Terri sections, you ought to put the Greer and Wolfson material in the anti-Terri section, at least.

Absolutely not. Greer's judicial decisions and Wolfson's guardian ad litem determinations are legal documents that go to the heart of the controversy. As I said, each draws conclusions about the situation, but neither started from a predetermined conclusion and looked for facts to prove that "side" of things, as did most of the authors of the editorials/articles/blogs in the sections that have opinions for or against removing the feeding tube.

Why don't you just add links to some more anti-Terri editorials? You can find several of them (along with criticism of them, of course) on the terrisfight.org web site. (Apparently the anti-Terri partisans here, who can't seem to find op-eds supporting their position, don't read the info on www.terrisfight.org -- they're probably afraid of having their biases challenged.) NCdave 13:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought this had been discussed before. The path to balance is not keeping all the valueless links or opinions of one side, then adding some equally valueless stuff from the other side. The path is to excise those links that are purely prejudicial, with no real information that will contribute to the reader's understanding of the controversy, and contain accusations that border on the libelous. This links list does not need more bloating.

The list is incredibly bloated, even if it weren't biased towards the Schindler side, it would still be too big. If it's not fixed by the time I get home, I'm going to take the pruning shears to it, again. I must say, I'm disappointed that DaveNC continually re-adds these links, even when we have community consensus to get rid of many of them. I thought we had an agreement with him that we'd work together to make this article concise and non-biased, not that he'd continually reinsert material removed in accordance with community consensus. Lankiveil 01:03, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC).

Even your proposed section titles are biased. The anti-Terri folks do not just want to remove her feeding tube. They want to starve her to death by all means necessary. Michael Schiavo & Felos & Greer are also blocking anyone from feeding her by mouth. It is factually untrue and reflective of POV bias to say that this fight is only about her feeding tube. It isn't. It is about dehydrating her to death by forbidding anyone from giving her food and liquids by any means.

Sorry, but you lost this battle a long time ago. We are not going to say in this article that Michael Schiavo wants to starve Terri to death. Go elsewhere to peddle your anti-feeding-tube-removal garbage. The talk page of what is supposed to be a neutral article is no place for that, as you've been warned many times before.

Here's a proposed "compromise" in the case, which Felos/Greer/Michael Schiavo should accept, if they really believed all that nonsense about her dying w/o the feeding tube:

Remove her feeding tube & give her family and their chosen caregivers opportunity to feed & hydrate her only by mouth for three weeks. If at the end of three weeks she is still alive, then Felos/Greer/Michael Schiavo have obviously been lying about her inability to accept at least liquid nurishment by mouth, so revoke Michael's guardianship, and give guardianship to Terri's family, to care for her as they wish, and to initiate divorce proceedings against Michael.

Of course we all know that Terri's family would jump at this compromise, and that Felos & Michael Schiavo would refuse it, because we all know that the Felos propaganda machine nonsense about her dependence on the feeding tube is just that: nonsense. NCdave 14:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More sermonizing, not worthy of a response. Keep your personal opinions off of this talk page. Better yet, just stop editing this article entirely. You have proven, time and time again, that you are unable to set aside your feelings about this case for long enough to edit this article in an NPOV manner, and so any given contribution of yours is very likely to be worthless.

I would really appriceate some constructive comments from those who are actually concerned with improving this article, and not just with advocating a point of view. I envision this organization as the first part of the process of cleaning up the links section--the second part will involve dropping those links which really add no value (over NCDave's strenuous objections, I'm sure), in order to restore some semblance of balance to this sections of the article. I do partially agree with NCDave's comments, in that there is a need for a few more opinionated sources in favor of Michael Schiavo's position. SS451 16:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should figure out what links were used by people (including NCDave) as references to write the article, and move those into a separate "References" section. Then we can clean up everything in the "External links" section without anyone complaining that we're removing references. Having a References section should also help with the ongoing POV dispute. So, who's used what as a reference? JYolkowski 16:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like what you've done with the sectioning of the links. It's a start but it is preposterous that we have so many op/ed's in the first place. I'm growing more and more frustrated with this article and the way honest editors, like yourself, seeking an NPOV article gets viciously attacked and derided. I don't really don't think we'll get anywhere before we've been through mediation and arbitration or have sufficient editors agree that we just ignore NCDave. Preisler 17:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)