Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 15

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 10

←

Archive 13

→

Text removed

In an appearance on ABC News's Nightline on March 15, 2005, Michael Schiavo cited the willingness that Mrs. Schiavo's parents expressed to keep her alive by any means necessary, including quadruple amputation if needed, as a key reason for denying transfer of guardianship to them. [1]

No, the transcript does not say that. Schiavo makes it quite clear that it has nothing to do with the Schindlers. SCHIAVO: If I moved on with my life — and I moved on with a portion of it — but I still have a big commitment to Terri. I made her a promise...And another reason why I won't give Terri back is that Mr. Schindler testified in court, at the 2000 trial, that he would — to keep Terri alive he would cut her arms and legs off and put her on a ventilator just to keep her alive...It's not about the money. This is about Terri. It's not about the Schindlers, it's not about the legislators, it's not about me, it's about what Terri Schiavo wanted. I am in the process of tracking down this testimony, as I recall reading parts of it in another article. --Viriditas | Talk 11:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here it is, from the December 2003 report to Governor Bush by Dr. Jay Wolfson from the University of South Florida:

Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. 'Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state. --Viriditas | Talk 11:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, how does Mr. Schindler saying that he would cut her arms and legs off not represent that statement? I'm not understanding where your quibble is... the testimony? The statement about amputation? "a" key reason vs. "the" key reason? Please explain why you removed the text, as I'm not seeing a clear explanation. Ronabop 11:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The editor wrote that the statement in question was a key reason for denying transfer of guardianship to them. The transcript does not say that. If anything, Schiavo makes it clear that this is one reason directly connected to the Schindler's inability (probably for religious reasons) to respect Terri's wishes. The quote in Wolfson's report makes that clear, but Schiavo only alludes to the testimony in the transcript. Also, Michael Schiavo further clarifies in the transcript that this is not about what he wants, but about what Terri Schiavo wanted. The statement that was removed from the article attempted to distort these facts. Further, the statement by the Schindlers has been put to rest on page 34 of Wolfson's report:Of the Schindlers, there has evolved the unfortunate and inaccurate perception that they will "keep Theresa alive at any and all costs" even if that were to result in her limbs being amputated and additional, complex surgical and medical interventions being performed, and even if Theresa had expressly indicated her intention not to be so maintained. During the course of the GAL's [Guardian Ad Litem] investigation, the Schindlers allow that this is not accurate, and that they never intended to imply a gruesome maintenance of Theresa at all costs. --Viriditas | Talk 12:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re-added text, with efforts to manage such issues, feel free to adjust as needed! Ronabop 12:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the statement that Michael Schiavo said in a transcript that "this" (ending her life) "is not about what he wants, but about what Terri Schiavo wanted," it is important to note that he said exactly the opposite in a sworn deposition in 1999, that his statement is also inconsistent with what he swore in court in 1992, and that it is contradicted by the sworn testimony of no fewer than four other witnesses, two of whom heard Terri express the opposite view, and two of whom heard Michael repeatedly say that he didn't know what Terri's wishes were. (I would also add that he contradicted that statement on Larry King Live last month, but his defenders here insist that he didn't mean what his words said in that interview, and it wasn't sworn testimony, anyhow.) NCdave 00:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LA Times stories

Under the politicians sub-section there are two LA Times stories summarized, presumably to cast doubt on the motives of the Republicans, but should we really have them here? Here's my two cents:

I think the March 26 DeLay story is unfair since in his particular situation, there was no contention about the wishes of his father. I'm not aware that DeLay has said that he does not think that anyone should be ever removed from life support, just that in cases where there may be some doubt to "err on the side of life".
I'm less sure about the March 22 GWB story even after reading Sun Hudson and Advance Directives Act. It seems to be the case that Sun Hudson would have died in the near future regardless of the respirator, so the decision was made to remove the tube, and hasten the process. In the Schiavo case it seems like she could live well into old age, but with no higher brain function. Is that a correct assessment?

--CVaneg 16:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sun Hudson's form of dwarfism is typically fatal, however, vigorous medical care allows these children to live past infancy (albeit with severe limitations, such as mental retardation). Sun's death was not a 100% thing. Furthermore, it's a contrast -- Wanda Hudson, Sun's legal guardian, was refusing to withdraw support. Professor Ninja 17:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thing is, we're not taking sides. If people with axes to grind are making this kind of comment, we should report the fact, without endorsing it. This isn't a piece of journalism, it's an encyclopedia article, with all the distancing that implies. We certainly shouldn't be getting into whether the comparison is a just one unless this has been raised publicly--if DeLay's team has responded to it in those terms, for instance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is not our place to take sides. I think most people on this page (though clearly not all) share that point of view. That does not mean that we should not be judging whether a source is a fair one, though. After all, we have made plenty of determinations that while some anti-Michael Schiavo articles are strictly speaking true, that they take liberties and interpretations of the facts that are misleading and unjustified. I don't see how this is all that different. --CVaneg 08:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with that kind of determination. We should be adopting NPOV, which means we judge a view by whether it's significant, not whether we agree with it. There are tonnes of anti-Michael Schiavo stories advanced by many groups and they have had a lot of influence, so they should be cited, otherwise it'll look like we're hiding something. See WP:NPOV. "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves"--Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Terri had some higher brain function, CVaneg. The Florida DCF neurologist's report, along with the testimony of numerous witnesses, points out that she recognized various people, and responded differently to different people, and sometimes responded with apparent understanding to English language. NCdave 18:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMVHO the best way to handle the DeLay story is to note its details as reported by the LA Times and also note the specific circumstances of it, which do differ significantly from Schiavo (e.g. DeLay's father was in a coma and required a ventalator to breath). This is neutral as the reader can then interpret it for himself. I attempted to do this previously, though another user removed the information in between, giving only an ad hominem attack on the source article as his reason for doing so. That is not sufficient to remove pertinent factual data that is presented in a neutral manner, so I restored it and would ask the user who removed it to quit promoting a POV by removing material he/she does not like. Rangerdude 23:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I nearly agree. However it's a point of view that the ventilator is relevant. If someone has made a comment to that effect, cite that as an opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cremation

There are reports of Michael Schiavo's plans to cremate Terri... Does someone want to add this somewhere?

I'm not sure where it would go, nor what significance to impart to this fact. I suppose you could put it in the section regarding the anticipated autopsy. since the autopsy was announced in part to deflect rumors that Michael was trying to hide something by having the body cremated. Personally, I'm inclined to wait. --CVaneg 19:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, the Schindler family wants to have a proper Catholic mass before she is cremated but Michael wants the cremation to happen either before the Catholic mass or he doesn't want the Catholic mass to happen at all. I agree that this information is a little sketchy at best and waiting for more information would not hurt. This is also based on the aftermath of her death and I am not sure if this article wants to go in the direction of Terri's life and struggle, the feud between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo, or both.--207.65.109.90 17:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly the autopsy photos are rumored to have leaked and be availible. I don't know if this is true or a joke but may be note worthy if someone could give a definitive answer.--Case 04:47, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Early life -- weight inconsistency

There's an inconsistency in the "Early Life" reporting of Schiavo's weight: in one paragraph she weighed 200 pounds and lost 65 pounds, in the following paragraph she weighed 250 pounds and dropped to 150 pounds (i.e., she lost 100 pounds). Could someone please clean this up and provide citations for the numbers. Thanks. --64.132.60.202 21:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am the editor who added both statements. The statement about 200 pounds has been cited in a number of places, including the The Johns Hopkins News-Letter. The 250 pounds statement was cited in Wolfson's, 2003 Guardian Ad Litem report. I suspect that the Johns Hopkins source was worded incorrectly, as I have read other sources who claim her weight was "around" 200 pounds. The Wolfson report is considered to be accurate, but I suspect there may be two different periods of weight loss here. I'm looking into it, and I should have an answer later tonight. --Viriditas | Talk 21:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great. (Thanks for doing this.) Another potential primary source that might address this issue is the medical malpractice suit court record. --64.132.60.202 22:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've used the March 26 Newsweek article, "The Legacy of Terri Schiavo" as a source. --Viriditas | Talk 06:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GAL Wolfson only had 30 days to examine Terri and all the medical and legal evidence and prepare his report, which is probably why it contains some rather obvious errors (in the early timeline, for example). GAL Pearse had 6 months, which is probably why his report seems to be more carefully prepared. NCdave 07:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you do us all a favor and list the major errors in Wolfson's report? --Viriditas | Talk 07:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is by no means comprehensive, but I can give you a few other examples of errors in Wolfson's report. But first, note that Wolfson was predisposed to favor M.Schiavo's viewpoint, because shortly before being appointed GAL he told the local press that he thought Terri's feeding tube should be removed. That should have disqualified him from serving as GAL, but Judge Demers appointed him anyhow, on Oct. 31, 2003, despite objections filed in court on Oct. 25 and Oct. 29 by Terri's parents. Wolfson's report was issued a month later. In addition to the error regarding Terri's weight, it erred in favor of the M.Schiavo/Felos viewpoint in several ways:

Wolfson accepted the PVS diagnosis, despite the disagreement of many physicians, and despite the fact that Terri was getting analgesics to relieve menstural pain every month, and the fact that PVS patients cannot experience pain. (GAL Pearse had also accepted the PVS diagnosis, but back in 1998, when Pearse did his report, the more precise & correct MCS diagnosis was a fairly new neurological classification.)
Wolfson reported that Terri got physical therapy until 1994, even though there are no medical records of any therapy of any kind after 1992. (Wolfson's conclusion was presumably on the basis of M.Schiavo's representations.)
Wolfson reported that Terri had never had a bedsore, even though Michael's own 1992 deposition in the medical malpractice case indicated that Terri had had a toe amputated because of bedsores.
Wolfson accepted M.Schiavo's belated recollection of Terri's supposed wishes, even though GAL Pearse had found M.Schiavo's recollection not credible, even though Michael didn't "remember" it until 7-1/2 or 8 years later, and even though that belated recollection is inconsistent both with the testimony of other witnesses, and with Michael's own testimony in the 1992 malpractice case.

Mostly, those seem like honest errors on GAL Wolfson's part (though accepting Michael's belated recollection is hard to fathom). My guess is that, due to the very short amount of time that Wolfson had, he didn't have time to read all the testimony from the 1992 malpractice case, and didn't have time to review the medical records which would have shown him, for example, that Terri's therapy ended in 1992 rather than 1994. NCdave 08:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is inaccurate information in this section. Michael himself stated in a deposition that they were not trying to conceive, that Terri's periods were normal, and that he was unaware of any odd eating habits or recent weight gain/loss. The deposition is here: http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03-24-05/mic-depo.pdf

Very good info there, and I thank you for posting that very useful link, whoever you are! That deposition also indicates that Terri's peak weight (which was way before she met Michael) was about 200 lbs. While she was with Michael, her weight was always between 120 and 145 lbs.

That's just about ideal. According to the chart that came with my bathroom scale, 122 lbs is the ideal weight for a medium build 5'4-1/2" woman. According to this Met Life table, the ideal weight is 125-140. According to this table the ideal weight is 110-141. According to this site the ideal weight is 119-133 lbs.

But who are you? Please sign your messages. You can easily sign and date your messages by appending ~~~~ (four tildes) to the end.

NCdave 08:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Wolfson had thirty (30) days to examine Terri Shaivo directly, review medical reports, and write his own findings. In that thirty day period twenty of those days were spent (in whole or in part) with Terri Shaivo observing her and her reactions to changes in her surroundings. The thirty day limitation was placed upon him by the courts. Two thirds of the time he was given he spent in direct observation. And he concluded that Terri Shaivo was in a vegetative state. This may not sound like a lot of time, but I'm relatively certain it's more than any of these other doctors spent on the case.

In all fairness I will say that had something similar happened to my daughter I would most likely have the same attitude as the Schindlers. That does not make it right however. I can guarantee you that I would not be accusing someone of murder without concrete, undeniable empirical proof. There is law in many states about "abuse of process", but I think it's high time the states came up with laws to protect the innocent from the libelous and defamatory; something with prison time built in.

Finally, $700,000 may sound like a lot of money, but with the cost of hospitalization I seriously doubt that the money lasted much more than two years if that. Also, considering that medical costs consistently rise year after year there is little doubt in my mind that the $700,000 allocated to Terri's care quickly dwindled down to nothing. This was not a fight over money. There was none left to fight over.

Would it be possible to add one more external link

I realize that the links section of this article has been discussed and pared; however, would it be possible to add the following external link under 11.3 Advocacy and commentary: abstractappeal.com -- it's a Florida law blog. With regard to the Schiavo case, it is, in the author's words, an attempt to help people understand the law in this case. It would be a balance to the two already listed links and it would also provide a commentary on Florida law. --64.132.60.202 00:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

abstractappeal.com is already listed under the heading informational sites. Having not read the whole thing, I can't say whether or not proponents of the Schindler camp would call it advocacy. --CVaneg 01:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- Thank you. (Would it be possible, then, to change the wording of that link to, e.g., Informational Site: "The legal aspects of the Schiavo case"? I, alas, skipped over it initially, thinking it was another general information site about Schiavo, et al.)--64.132.60.202 01:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to Be bold and get a Wikipedia:Username while you're at it. --CVaneg 01:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo's girlfriend

I think it's important for this article to mention that Michael Schiavo is living with another woman and they have two children. I don't know how this got lost - it was in the article weeks ago. It should be phrased neutrally, of course. The recent anon edits are disappointingly opinionated, but we can find a way to work this fact into the article neutrally. Rhobite 07:04, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the Michael Schiavo section describing Mr. Schiavo's present relationship. I feel it is reasonably neutral, but feel free to edit or discuss it if you think that there is room for improvement in that area. Firebug 07:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your inclusion is good but I think it needs to be mentioned when they moved in together or some such. If I'm not mistaken, this was not until several years after Terri collapased yet this is not made clear in the bit you added 60.234.141.76 16:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo moved in with his girlfriend, Cindy Shook (now Cindy Brasher), in the first half of 1992, a little over two years after Terri's collapse. He and Cindy had been dating since sometime in 1991. But that's not who he lives with now. (Cindy is now terrified of him, BTW.) He's now living with Jodi Centonze, whom he calls his "fiancee." My recollection is that he moved in with her in 1995 (should double-check the date). They have two children together. They are living together in open adultery, in violation of Florida law (798.01). The crime is a second degree misdemeanor, carrying a maximum sentence of 60 days incarceration. NCdave 17:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. Enough with calling Michael a criminal. Yes, there is still a law on the books that makes adultery a crime. However, this law hasn't been enforced in who knows how long, and would very likely be ruled unconstitutional if anyone did try to enforce it. --Azkar 18:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether it would be ruled unconstitutional is a matter of speculation. You might be right about that. The courts are unpredictable. But it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, and certainly the framers of the U.S. Constitution would be astonished and horrified at such an "interpretation." I don't know how recently or often it has been enforced in Florida, but, for now, at least, it is the law, and the law should be enforced.

"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." -Thomas Jefferson

NCdave 18:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting using a Thomas Jefferson quote. Jefferson, the man who had a mistress, one Sally Hemmings [[2]] in Paris.Wjbean 16:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the penalty for Open Adultery in Florida is no worse than the penalty for unmarried lewd cohabitation. In some other States, adultery is punished much more severely. NCdave 17:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the Schindlers knew about this since 1991. Oddly enough, Michael was never even CHARGED with the crime. So, not so oddly enough, he was never convicted. So, not so oddly enough, saying Michael is guilty of open adultery is irrelevant possibly defamation. and yet, oddly enough, you think acting as judge, jury, and executioner means otherwise. Go Hathorne Go. FuelWagon 17:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'They are living together in open adultery, in violation of Florida law' Uhm, I'm no legal expert, but isn't something like this for the courts to decide if it is really in violation or not? I mean, don't we generally need a conviction before we say he has broken the law? Or do we make no distinction between allegations from some hothead and a conviction in a court of law. I think Jefferson said somethign about that as well. anon

No, anon, it is the other way around. Violation of the law comes first, the conviction (sometimes) comes as a result. A person isn't even prosecuted, let along convicted, until it is alleged that he has broken the law.

In this case there really is no question about the fact that Michael Schiavo is guilty of violating of this statute. It is hard to imagine a more blatant case: he's been living with Jodie Centonz since 1995, he's been calling her his finacee since 1997, and he has two children with her -- all while still legally married to Terri.

Nor is Ms. Centonz the first woman Michael has lived with in open adultery since Terri's injury. NCdave 17:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too long of an article/discussion

How can this article take up so much space? Is it really necessary to have a life story and surmising of every legal challenge? Seems to me this whole article should be no more than 4-5 paragraphs maximum...

I think the information is important, as well as balanced. Also try and sign your name after your comments (use four ~'s) Saopaulo1 08:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hah, this article is grossly POV-biased, and riddled with false statements. It is just a propaganda piece, a perfect example of why Wikipedia gets so little respect. (But I, too, would appreciate signatures.) NCdave 17:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you'd prefer a conspiracy theory? --L33tminion | (talk) 05:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Life Support or feeding and hydration

What is the better ways to describe the situation. I say Life Support. Saopaulo1 09:02, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

It is considered life support. It may be more accurate to use the phrase, artificial life support in the form of nutrition and hydration. See also pp. 21-23 of the 2003 Wolfson report. --Viriditas | Talk 09:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greer didn't say "artificial." He specifically ordered that she be deprived of nutrition and hydration by "natural" means. NCdave 16:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most of the edits are with regards to life support. I propose that the sentence starting with "The efforts of Schiavo's husband to discontinue life support have prompted a fierce debate over" be changed to "The efforts of Schiavo's husband to discontinue life support (as defined by Florida Law) have prompted a fierce debate over", with a link to the law. That way, there is no question that this wiki page is talking about the legal definition of life support, as opposed to someone's opinion.--220.220.184.249 06:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone else agree, or disagree? Mike H 06:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Rama 06:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Neutrality^talk 14:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Iceberg3k 15:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Diagreed (but I'm anon so maybe it doesn't matter). Whatever your personal opinions may be, life support is a medical term. It includes basically anything which is necessary to keep a person alive. This includes feeding tubes, IV drips etc. Basically, if a person will die without this extra equipement then it's life support. This can include pacemakers in some cases altho this is a bid more debatable since for most people, pace makers only protect them from potentially dangerous situations don't keep them alive). I'm not saying it is necessarly okay to remove all forms of life support, this is obviously up to a person but the fact is any medical practiotioner (doctor, nurse etc) worth their degree would agree this is life support since you need food and water to life and she can't feed or drink herself.-anon

The term "life-support" doesn't encompasss everything you need to live. In a medical context, it means artificial measures, such as a respirator. The extension of the term "life support" to include tube feeding is recent and still controversial, no definition of "life-support" includes any form of feeding by mouth. Spoon-feeding is not considered "life support," anywhere. However, Greer specifically ordered that she not be given nutrition or hydration by "natural" means (i.e., he prohibited spoon-feeding).

(Note: 1-1/2 years ago Greer forbade her from receiving 8 weeks of therapy that was intended to determine whether she could be sustained by spoon-feeding.)

Disagreed. The judge's 2 orders didn't mention either life support or a feeding tube. They specifically ordered that she be deprived of nutrition and hydration. To say that it was about life support, when he specifically ordered that she not be given food or water by natural means, is POV biased and grossly deceptive. NCdave 16:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Supporting evidence - Judge Greer's order[3] to deny all food and water by any means. The feeding tube is a Red Herring - a very deceptive one. One would almost think it is deliberate. StuartGathman 17:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

W/r/t Florida law, I agree with linking to it, but it is important to note that it was violated: it required "clear and convincing" proof that she was in a persistent vegetative state, and "clear and convincing" proof that she had expressed the wishe to not be kept alive, an evidentiary standard which obviously was not met in either case. NCdave 16:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is up to a judge to decide -- and apparently he rules otherwise. Rama 17:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I should have said that "it was violated by Judge Greer." NCdave 17:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry is right. You aren't terribly clear. Due process was applied to this case. Over and over again I might add. I think it's a real shame that even the law is not good enough for you NCDave. It concerns me greatly that there are so many out there who feel the law has let them down. Will that be justification to make your own 'law?' Wjbean 16:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Greer order Stuart links above is a perect example of the complexity of the court system and the layman's misunderstanding of it. Folks mistakenly think they understand what these orders mean by reading them at face value (I am not immune to these initial reactions, either; I'm not trying to say that.), when clearly, they do not. Upon close reading, the order states that the new motion the Schindlers were making was already covered by a previous pending motion, and therefore, must necessarily be denied. It is important to dissect these orders and motions and attempt to understand the legal basis behind them. The judges that many are accusing of activism have merely been following the letter of the law, which is very complex. I think, however, it is worth the time to try to understand this process.--Minaflorida 19:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The accounts I read of Greer's final order "Michael Schiavo shall cause the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Teresa Schiavo" were that this wording was necessary since it would remain possible for an attempt to be made to naturally give food and drink to Terri, i.e. provide nutrition and hydration. The Schindlers had made a motion that while the feeding tube was removed, that an attempt be allowed for Terri to be naturally fed and hydrated. They unsuccessfully argued that the court was limited to authorizing Michael to remove the feeding tube and that by ordering Michael to [withdraw] nutrition and hydration exceeded his legal authority.

Minaflorida, where did you read an account of the meaning of Greer's order as you described it or is this original research on your part which you would like to contribute to the article? patsw 20:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read the text of the order that Stuart linked a few posts above--the order denying the additional motion. If you read the text of that order, it states plainly that the content is contained in the previous 150.40 (FL Rules of Civil Procedure) motion that the Schindler's had filed.--Minaflorida 20:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

first, linguistics: "life support" v. "nutrition and hydration" v. "life-prolonging procedures"--frankly, it can be any of these three terms, with more credence to "life support" and "life-prolonging procedures" because: (1) the Florida Statutes in 2005 use the term "life-prolonging procedures," see, e.g., S. 765.101(10) Fla. Stat. (2005)("Life-prolonging procedures" defined as "medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain."); (2) the initial order in this case refers to "life support," see, 2-11-2000 Order ("Ordered and adjudged that the Petition for Authorization To Discontinue Artificial Life Support ... and Petitioner/Guardian is hereby authorized to proceed to proceed with the discontinuance of said artificial life support"); and (3) the phrase "nutrition and hydration" was introduced later in the proceedings, see, e.g., 2-25-2005 Order (the Schindler family filed a motion entitled, "Motion for an Emergency Stay of Execution of February 11, 2000, Order To Remove Theresa Schiavo's Nutrition and Hydration" and this court order uses this term instead of life support throughout the order.) Subsequent to this, the Schindler family filed an emergency motion to provide Theresa Schiavo with "food and water by natural means." see, 2-28-2005 Motion, and so on. My vote would be for "life-prolonging procedures" as that is the name of the act in Florida.

second, link to the Florida law: i recommend a link to the entire chapter, which is Chapter 765 of the Florida Statutes.

considering the speed with which this article changes, and having never edited any Wikipedia article, I am reluctant to make these changes, and hope that someone else who has been editing this article will make such a change, if that is the concensus.

third, to NCDave: please indicate when you received a license to practice law in the State of Florida. Additionally, it is clear from the discussion above and other discussions concerning this article that you are articulating/regurgitating arguments made by the Schindler family and its supporters. This is not a neutral POV, it is advocacy. Further, if you are going to make such statements concerning Florida law and the judicial decisions related thereto, I highly recommend that you read the law and the case law, and cite to cases that support your position, keeping in mind that I believe/suspect a number of your arguments have alreay been made in court and found to be without merit. --Mia-Cle 00:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, here is the definition of "Life-sustaining procedures" under Florida law:

"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

Note that the definition plainly specifies artificially provided nutrition and hydration, implying that it does not encompass naturally provided nutrition and hydration. But Greer chose to ignore that. There is no provision in Florida law permitting the withholding or withdrawing of natural nutrition and hydration, yet Judge Greer explicitly ordered that Terri not be provided "with food and water by natural means." See "Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED."

I don't see how there can be any legitimate dispute about the fact that Greer's order was outside the law. NCdave 00:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To get this discussion back on track, it is my understanding that the point of this section of discussion is to decide between using the phrase "life support" or "nutrition and hydration." I will reiterate: to be technically correct, in Florida, the phrase is "life-prolonging procedure." Which gives one three options, two of which are more acceptable for a neutral point of view (life support or life-prolonging procedure) and one which is less so because, as I noted, "nutrition and hydration" were introduced by the Schindler family motions subsequent to the trial, which is not a neutral point of view. (i.e., the statutory phrase was changed, deliberately, by the Schindlers in their motions. this is not the neutral phrasing of the statute.)

As to the rest of your "argument" --which is irrelevant for the point of this section -- you show a remarkable lack of understanding of law and the judicial process; however, based on your numerous "discussions" wherein you only regurgitate one point of view, I am not going to waste my time attempting to explain the legal issues and the legal process to you. Go to law school. I will simply point out that in 1990, the Florida Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in this area, "In re Browning," which, in addition to affirming that in Florida competent and incompetent persons have the right to determine for themselves the course of their medical treatment, it sets forth the clear and convincing standard (that you clearly, clearly do not understand. also, see Judge Greer's initial order, which also outlines the application of the standard. For a good interpretation for lay persons, abstractappeal.com addresses this as well).--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 23:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring your insults, "life-prolonging procedure" is the term defined in the law which authorizes withholding or withdrawing nutrition & hydrations from some patients -- but the legal definition of "life-prolonging procedure" does not cover natural feeding and hydration, which Greer explicitly ordered halted.

you cannot "halt" something that has never happened or was physically incapable of happening. i do not recall in any of the medical evidence a time when Mrs. Schiavo was not on a feeding tube, as it was the only way she was able to take nutrition without drowning/choking as she lacked the ability to swallow. see professor ninja's response. this line of argument is nonsense. again, i am tired of attempting to explain to you the nuances of court proceedings, but here it is, one last time: the Schindler motions deliberately changed the language from the initial order, whatever their motivation to do so. --Mia-Cle

You are correct that one cannot halt something that is impossible. But if it was impossible then why did GAL Wolfson recommend swallowing tests and therapy? And how did Terri manage to swallow quarts of saliva every day (as we all do) without difficulty? And why did doctors say that the claim that she could not swallow was nonsense? And why did nurses and family members used to sneak Terri Jell-O and pudding treats which they testified that she obviously enjoyed? And why did the Schindlers petition the court for the swallowing tests and therapy that Wolfson recommended? And, why, at the 11th hour, did the Schindlers petition the court for permission to try feeding her by mouth, even without the recommended swallowing therapy?

If Terri truly couldn't swallow, then why did M.Schiavo and Felos and Greer forbid the swallowing tests and therapy which would have proven it?

The claim that Terri could not swallow at all, and the claim that she definitely could not swallow well enough to be sustained by spoon-feeding, like the claim that her brain had been replaced by fluid, were Felos propaganda, i.e., lies. The truth is that Terri could definitely swallow, and that she might well have been able to swallow well enough to be sustained by spoon-feeding, but Greer (at Felos's request) refused to permit Terri's family to try. NCdave 03:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terri had at least two or three swallowing tests, according to Dr. Barnhill. Or is he part of the Shiavo/Felos/Greer cabal? You assert that "....the claim that she definitely could not swallow well enough to be sustained by spoon-feeding...were...lies." What is your proof of this? You also claim that "[t]he truth is that Terri could definitely swallow..." Where is your proof of that? Were you there? Did you see her swallow? Would you even know she was swallowing if you saw it? It is so sad to see someone so blinded by a viewpoint that they ignore all of the voluminous evidence to the contrary but grasp at every crackpot, illogical, unsupportable suggestion that buttresses their view as gospel truth. LRod 216.76.216.118 20:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

216.76.216.118, everyone who visited Terri could see that she swallowed her own saliva without difficulty. Even Felos's chosen doctor, Barnhill, surely must have noticed that, even though he only "examined" her very briefly (for about ten minutes) on two occasions. Terri's saliva production and saliva swallowing were normal, a fact which was confirmed by numerous physicians:

In the spring of 2000, three physicians, including Dr. Jay Carpenter, who is a former Chief of Medicine at Morton Plant Hospital, filed affidavits after observing Ms. Schiavo. All three physicians stated that it is visually apparent that Ms Schiavo is able to swallow and, in fact, does swallow her own saliva.[4]

If that is not enough proof for you, I suggest that you put a pencil and paper beside your desk, and make a mark on the paper every time you swallow your own saliva. See how many times you swallow your own saliva in just one hour. NCdave 01:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the discredited Dr. Hammesfahr. Of course that would be your source. Is observation of swallowing what got him his Nobel Peace Prize nomination? Or was it his informercial on hyperbaric oxygen therapy? There's a difference between the reflex swallowing of one's own saliva excretion and the swallowing-on-demand capability necessary to ingest external products such as food and water. LRod 216.76.216.118 03:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which is it, LRod? Are you disputing the correctness of Dr. Hammesfahr's statement, that she routinely swallowed her own saliva, or are you just changing the subject? I don't believe that you will find that any doctor who had seen Terri ever claimed that she was unable to swallow her own saliva.

As for whether or not she could have eaten other things well enough to get along without the feeding tube, that question will remain forever unanswered, because Michael Schiavo & Felos & Judge Greer refused to allow the swallowing therapy & tests that could have answered it. But there is good reason to think that she could have, since she ate Jell-O and swallowed Holy Communion. During Communion, she understood what was going on well enough to close her eyes while the priest prayed. NCdave 19:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intermediate orders referred to "life-prolonging procedure" but significantly the order which killed Terri directed that "Michael Schiavo shall cause the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Teresa Schiavo". [5] This order unqualified by the terms "natural" or "artifical" empowered the police to threaten with arrest anyone who would dare to give Terri a drink of water. How can quoting this order be introducing a POV? The text speaks for itself. This is the article about Terri Schiavo and not about legislative history or euphemism. patsw 14:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are attempting to parse, and therefore misrepresent, the entire judicial process to suit one particular point of view. Therefore, what you are attempting to do is not a neutral reading. The text "speaks" in context--the context of this entire case and the context of over two hundred years of judicial decisions.

As for writing a neutral article, here's an example: for a non-neutral point of view, you would write, as I'm guessing you want to write: "The Judge ordered Terri's murder." Here's neutral: The judge denied the Schindler's Motion (and the name of the motion) on the grounds that (on the grounds that the judge set forth). The way you are parsing is politicizing from one side of the argument and on its face not neutral.

Here's another example of writing from a biased point of view: The Schindlers, having lost at trial and on rehearing, bombarded the court with a series of frivolous post-trial motions, which they consistently lost because they were on weak legal grounds. They also attempted to forum shop (i.e., find a court whose outcome they did like), the attempts at which were summarily rejected as lacking legal grounds as well. For example, the Schindlers attempted to bypass a result they didn't like by turning the court case into a political circus that resulted in hastily written, unconstitutional laws that tried to undermine the separation of powers--the fundamental governing principal of democracy in the United States--for the sole purpose of getting the "order" that they wanted.

My point is this: just as the above paragraph sets forth a series of events and uses biased terms to describe it (bombard, frivolous, lacking, sole purpose, e.g.), it advocates one side of the argument, which is not a neutral writing. Its the same as when you parse your texts so that you get your one point of view across. It's not neutral.--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 01:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More details on medical side?

Just reading through and noticed no mention of Dr Maxfield, etc? porges 11:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. He examined Terri and determined that she wasn't in a vegetative state. Including such information would be contrary to the purpose of the article. NCdave 20:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How long did Dr. Maxfield examine Ms. Shiavo? Was he actually in direct contact with her or did he make this determination based on documentation alone? Wjbean 16:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that I recall reading that Dr. Maxwell visited Terri three times, but I don't recall the total amount of time that he spent with her, and I can't seem to find the reference now.

I do recall that, as Sen. Frist, M.D. noted, the doctors who spent the most time with Terri said that she wasn't in a PVS. Cranford spent just 45 minutes with her, and Bambakidis spent just 30 minutes with her. Terri's so-called "treating physician," Dr. Victor Gambone, spent only about 30 minutes with her per year.[6] NCdave 04:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this correct

"Hospice staff describe Mr. Schiavo as a very supportive husband who berated nurses for not taking better care of his wife; in 1994 the hospice attempted (unsuccessfully) to get a restraining order against him because he was demanding more attention for his wife at the expense of other patients' care. Due to the attention she has received in the 15 years she has been bedridden, Terri Schiavo has never developed any bedsores." I have read before that she did develop bedsores. Would be interested to know sources for this so we can see which is correct 60.234.141.76 16:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The source is that somebody just made it up. This article is riddled with outright lies. She wasn't even in hospice in 1994. NCdave 16:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the relevant source documents, Terri was moved to a hospice in April, 2000. The passage goes on to say, according to Jay Wolfson, one of Mrs. Schiavo's court-appointed guardians, in 1994 the administration of one nursing home attempted, unsuccessfully, to get a restraining order against him because he was demanding more attention for his wife at the expense of other patients' care. I cannot find this exact claim in the Wolfson report. What I did find, was the following claim on p.10: ...it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as “a nursing home administrator’s nightmare”. It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa’s collapse, she has never had a bedsore. I have attributed the bedsore comment to the Wolfson report, and the restraining order to this Newsweek article. Of course, if anyone has a better source, please add it. --Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Father Johansen says that she did have bedsores. The apparent discrepancy might not mean that ~~either Wolfson or~~ Johansen is in error, however, since Johansen's article is much more recent. Here's the relevant section of Johansen's article: (Correction: We now know that Wolfson was in error. -NCdave 18:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Many people believe that Terri Schiavo has had "the best of care," and that everything has been tried by way of rehabilitation. This belief is false. In fact, Terri has had no attempts at therapy or rehabilitation since 1992, and very little had been done up to that point. Terri has not even had the physical therapy most doctors would regard as normative for someone in her condition. The result is that Terri suffers from severe muscle contractures, which have caused her body to become contorted. Physical therapy could remedy this, but husband Michael has refused to provide it.

Terri has also suffered from what many professionals would regard as neglect. She had to have several teeth extracted last year because of severe decay. This decay was caused by a lack of basic dental hygiene, such as tooth-brushing. She also developed decubitus (skin) ulcers on her buttocks and thighs. These ulcers can be prevented by a simple regimen of regular turning: a basic nursing task that any certified nurse's aide can perform. The presence of these easily preventable ulcers is a classic sign of neglect. Bob and Mary Schindler have repeatedly complained of Terri's neglect, and have sought to remove Michael as guardian on that basis. Judge Greer was unmoved by those complaints as well.

NCdave 15:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So who is Fr. Johansen and what is the basis for his claims? I didn't see anything in the article that establishes credibility, expertise, or source for any of his statements. Is that what you're relying on to support your position? The statement "[s]he also developed decubitus (skin) ulcers on her buttocks and thighs," appears to be pulled out of thin air. Where does he come by that claim? C'mon, Dave. Help us out here. How does he know this? How can we trust the claim? Is it strong enough to debunk GAL Wolfson's observation who actually had access to Terri? Please tell us how. Just appearing in an article in a POV publication isn't enough. But you've been told that before. LRod 216.76.216.57 04:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how Fr. Johansen's learned that Terri had bedsores on her buttocks and thighs, but Michael testified under oath during a deposition for the 1992 medical malpractice case that Terri had had a toe amputated because of bedsores. I can't imagine why Michael would make that up, can you?

So Wolfson was certainly wrong when he reported that Terri never had bedsores.[7] That error also calls into question Wolfson's conclusion, that Michael demanded and Terri received "meticulous care by the nursing home" for Terri.

Here's the relevant part of the deposition:

                   IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
                   OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY 
                   CIVIL DIVISION
                   CASE NO. 92-939CI-15
                   ...
                   DEPOSITION OF: MICHAEL SCHIAVO
                   ...
                   DATE AND TIME: July 27, 1992; 9:05 a.m.
                   ...
                   Q Does she have any physical problems that you can see, other than neurological ones?
                   A She has the sore on the toe that's constant.  She had a toe removed.
                   Q Who did that?
                   A I forget the doctor's name.
                   Q When was that done?
                   A Approximately six months ago.
                   Q For the same reason, pressure sore?
                   A Yeah. Pressure sores.

In fairness to Wolfson, he had only 30 days to review the records and write his report, so it is not surprising that he some things wrong. I don't think that Wolfson was intentionally lying when he wrote that "through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore." He had no time to read all the records from the 1992 malpractice case. He was probably told by Felos or Michael that Terri had had no bedsores, and just took their word for it. Michael had probably forgotten that he had mentioned Terri's bedsores in his 1992 deposition. NCdave 18:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, NCdave, I gotta thank you for that one link. I finally read the original words, and it really puts a lot of stuff into perspective. Here are some excerpts followed by my opinions in parens:

The Petition is an attempt by Mr. and Mrs. Schindler to relitigate the entire case (held January 24, 2000). The affidavits of Heidi Law and Carlar Sauer Iyer deal exclusively with events occurring in the 1995-1997 timeframe, testimony certainly available at the time of the original evidentiary hearing. (Why didn't the Schindlers bring them to the original hearing? Why did Law/Iyer come forward just now especially if Michael was "killing" Terri with injections?) The affidavits of speech professionals show they rely on an interpretation of the videos from the 2002 evidentiary hearing, which is 180 degrees different from the affirmed ruling of this court. The affidavits of the 3 speech professionals clearly demonstrate that they disagree with the previous rulings of this court as amplified by the four opinions of the Second Disctrict Court of Appeals. It is clear they (the speech therapists) do not believe Terri is a vegatative state. Therefore any conclusion that they have reached would be fatally flawed.

(A bunch of doctors examine Terri, do scans, and whatever, and diagnose her to be in a vegitative state. 4 speech therapists watch a tape made by the parents and think Terri is responding. Yeah, I think I'd throw out their affidavits. The Schindlers are fishing. A diagnosis based on some selective clips should not overrule the work of doctors who actually examined her. Greer did the right thing to toss this voodoo diagnosis)

Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which include the staff of Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police, and believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.

(Hm, a conspiracy theory. that has a familiar ring to it. Sound familiar, NCdave?)

The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a CONSTANT basis. Neither in testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits... IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT MR. AND MRS. SCHINDLER WOULD NOT HAVE SUBPOENAED MS. IYER FOR THE JANUARY 2000 EVIDENTIARY HEARING HAD IYER CONTACTED THEM AS HER AFFIDAVIT ALLEGES.

(uh, yeah. Iyer says that in 1997 she was in constant contact with the Schindlers because she thought they should know about their daughter. And yet in 2000, the Schindlers didn't subpoena her as a witness? This is so much bullshit I need hip waders to get over it. You accuse Michael of "remembering" that Terri wouldn't want to be kept alive only after he got the malpractice money. But you don't think this is a case of the Schindlers "remembering" that "oh, yeah, remember that nurse who said Michael was killing Terri? maybe we should subpeona her this time around?" Give me a break.)

FuelWagon 17:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's mostly from Felos's pet judge, George Greer (with some of your own remarks inserted). Greer is the same guy who thumbed his nose at the recommendations of both of Terri's guardians ad litem, to rule according to Felos's wishes. His claim that the testimony of Heidi Law and Carla Iyer were previously available to the Schindlers is just a flat out lie. His claim that there is an inconsistency in Iyer's testimony is based on an obvious contortion of her words. However, when he said that he was dismissing three of the affidavits because they disagreed with his own previous conclusion about Terri's diagnosis, that was true - and shameful.

Note, too, that the doctors in that previous evidentiary hearing split 3-to-2 in their diagnosis (hardly dispositive, were Greer a fair judge).

But Greer didn't like the doctors that the family selected, so he simply discarded their testimony, and refused to permit Terri's family to select any other doctors to evaluate her. That left him with testimony from only one side.

Tell me, what would you think of the fairness of the proceedings in a capital murder trial if the defendent's lawyers were allowed to present the testimony of only two expert witnesses? Have you ever heard of a case in which the defense was forbidden from having more than two expert witnesses? Even a non-capital case??

What would you think of a capital murder case in which there was no jury, and only a single judge to rule on all the disputed facts, and no appeal of those rulings was allowed'?

What if that judge discarded the testimony of the defense's only two expert witnesses, on dubious grounds, and refused to allow the defense to substitute other experts?

What if, on the basis of that abbreviated testimony, the judge sentenced the defendant to death?

Well, that's what Judge Greer did, with just one difference: Terri is not a murderer. NCdave 07:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NCdave! Hey, that link about Iyer's affidavit is so good, I had to quote it in the timeline. (11 September 2003) Thanks! Got any more? FuelWagon 17:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should we mentioned the parents/lawyer comments earlier today

I accidently posted this out of order so reposting it here I believe earlier today (or maybe it was yesterday) the lawyers and/or parents were claiming she is still doing very well etc etc... I think it's worth mentioning their comments before mentioning her death as it has a bearing on their ability to properly comprehend her condition in their interactions with her. Of course, it's possible she might have been looking well and then suddenly died but all this is irrelevant IMHO. Basically maybe a short breakdown of how Michael and the parents and the lawyers described her conditions as the days progresses is worth including IMHO60.234.141.76 16:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In understand that 10 minutes before she died Michael kicked her family out. Does anyone know whether there was anyone else in the room with her when she died, besides Michael? NCdave 16:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Schindler and his sister, Suzanne Vitadamo, had been in the room visiting their sibling for about an hour and 45 minutes when a hospice administrator notified Michael Schiavo that his wife was in her final stages. The hospice official asked the siblings to leave the room so that Schiavo's condition could be evaluated. According to a hospice administrator, Bobby Schindler resisted and got into a dispute with a law enforcement officer there, saying he wanted to stay in the room, too. "Mr. Schiavo's overriding concern was Mrs. Schiavo has a right and had a right to die with dignity and die in peace," Felos said. "She had a right to have her last and final moments on this Earth be experienced by a spirit of love and not of acrimony." Her parents had begged to be with Terri while she died, but police denied their request, said Brother Paul O'Donnell, the Schindlers' spokesman and spiritual adviser. [8] --Viriditas | Talk 02:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Is the state of the Final Stages part of the current article a complete and biased falsehood, then? I don't see any indication in the link given that "According to the Schindlers' spokesperson, a few minutes before she died her parents and siblings were told to leave the room by her husband, Michael Schiavo." According to either side, this decision was taken by hospice officials so that Terri's condition could be evaluated, and a few minutes before her death, the parents were nowhere near Terri's room! There is no suggestion at all of Michael kicking anybody out of the room, which is the impression currently given by the article. Unless I've been misreading the cnn link above... Someone fact-check and fix this quick.--Fangz 15:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it really isn't clear who controlled access to her.

"Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, stood by his client's decision to have Terri Schiavo's brother and sister leave the room."[9]

This seems to indicate that Michael Schaivo did have some say at least with regard to the brother and sister. As quoted from Viriditas above, the spokesman says that the police denied the Schindler's request. I'm not sure if that's on Michael Schaivo's order, or judicial order, or if it's just the decision of the police present at the time. --CVaneg 16:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This just gets more confusing. As far as I can tell, there are two contradicting accounts from the above. Is the Michael Schaivo lawyer statement accurate, or is the unsourced statement about hospice officials (which may or may not be related to the immediately following statement from the hospice administrator) more accurate? In any case, there is still nothing about Michael Schaivo and the Schindler parents, especially a few minutes before her death. Do we have any other independent sources?--Fangz 17:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV use of word "family"

There are about twelve uses of the word "family" in the current version that in context appear to refer to Terri's parents (and possibly her siblings as well) but specifically exclude her husband. It seems to me that this usage is inherently POV as it delegitimizes Michael's relationship to her. Perhaps we should change these to more neutral expressions like "parents" and "the Schindler family" to avoid this apparent bias. I hesitate to 'be bold' on such a controversial article. What does everyone else think? Bovlb 18:23, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

I agree.--Fangz 18:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Terri and Michael were long estranged. Terri's family includes her mother, her father, her brother, her sister, and various in-laws, aunts, uncles, etc., who all wanted to protect her. Her so-called "husband" was not a husband in any meaninful sense. A man can only have one marriage family, and for Michael that is his fiancee, Jodi, and their two children.

Moreover, Terri's and Michael's marriage was on the rocks even before her collapse, and there is strong evidence of spousal abuse in that relationship. NCdave 19:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How can you be estranged from someone who is no longer able to think like a human NCDave? And calling Michael her "so called husband" is most certainly POV. By law (both judical and moral) Michael Shiavo was her husband. In all states in the union that makes him her primary custodian. Finally, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael Shiavo was an abusive husband? I doubt it. I doubt you can even prove that their marriage was "on the rocks" before her collapse. Get real NCDave. Wjbean 17:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what is being said. Not including Michael as part of Terri's "family" is putting forward a specific point of view - in this case, one that you strongly support. At the time of Terri's death, Michael was still her legal husband, and therefore family. --Azkar 19:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There has been no evidence that Terri and Michael were estranged, long or otherwise. By law, he was and is her family, and should be indicated as such. There is no evidence of spousal abuse, and even if there were, that doesn't change the fact, that, under law', he is her family. Rick K 00:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

NCDave just has a bug up his ass about Michael Schiavo. Maybe he ran over NCdave's cat or something. Iceberg3k 21:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Michael didn't kill my cat. But he killed both of Terri's cats. NCdave 03:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? NCdave, do us a favor and stop posting stuff like that. The stuff about the cats, I mean. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic being discussed. (Anon.)

Hey, anon, I'm not the one who brought up stuff about cats. That was Iceberg3k, in his personal attack.

I just stated a fact. It is an inconvenient fact, for those who want to believe in the pureness and sweetness of Michael Schiavo's heart: The fact that in early 1992 Michael Schiavo had Terri's two beloved cats, Shanna and Tolly, killed, to facilitate moving in with one of his girlfriends, who unfortunately owned a dog. That should tell you something about how much Michael really cared about Terri's wishes, even back in early 1992. Significantly, that was before he professed his undying love of Terri in the civil case, to persuade the jury that he needed a big pot of money to pay for Terri's therapy for years to come. NCdave 04:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made the necessary clarifications/corrections. Bovlb 05:31, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I think NCDave has completely disqualified himself as an editor to this article. He obviously is incapable of NPOV. Wjbean 17:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Facts are stubborn things." -John Adams NCdave 04:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Paragraph of Article is not relevant

The paragraph about 'Early Life' is not relevant nor desired on an encyclopaedia. My edit has nothing to do with point of view, religion, morality or anything else that people want to argue. It simply is NOT acceptable to include personal details not relevant to the subject. Please try to remember - this is an encyclopaedia NOT a biography. Viriditas - You would do well to stop calling legitimate edits vandalism - even if you disagree with the change. Rob cowie

Could someone clarify why Terri Schiavo's early life should not be included. Is it notable, no. Should it be included, yes. The 'subject' is Terri Schiavo, if the subject is her death then the article should be renamed or split. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The user is misinformed. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, especially the "Structure" section. His "legitimate edits" consist of removing legitimate content. The users edits fall in between the grey area of sneaky vandalism, Newbieness, NPOV violations, and bullying or stubbornness. --Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish - That paragraph does not enhance a readers understanding of the legal case surrounding this story, nor the ethical aspects of this story, nor the medical aspects of this story. Perhaps the purpose of this article should be clarified - is it about Terri Schiavo or about the circumstances of the legal case regarding her medical treatment? RoyBoy - I agree, there is a case for splitting this article... or renaming it Rob cowie

The "Early life" section is an important part of a biography (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography) and enhances every aspect of the article (not a story as you call it), including the historical timeline. The section that you twice removed directly "enhances" (as you term it) the medical, legal, and ethical elements, and it's quite clear as to how it accomplishes those goals: it informs the reader as to what kind of person Terri Schiavo was before her medical crisis. The section also gives a brief background on her eating disorder, which is thought to be responsible for her eventual collapse, and the section alludes to Michael Schiavo's malpractice case two years later. While the section certainly needs to be expanded, your removal of this content could be very loosely (and weakly) interpreted as sneaky vandalism, for by removing this content you are essentially engaging in misinformation, and misinforming the reader as to the origin and nature of Terri Schiavo's medical condition. This also plays into the hands of the POV warriors who insist that Terri never had an eating disorder, and that Michael Schiavo allegedly "abused" her, and was responsible for her collapse. So, in an indirect but very real way, you are assisting those who would misinform and perpetuate NPOV violations, not to mention that your repeated removal of standard biographical content, as well as your refusal to discuss the issue, is indicative of bullying and stubbornness on your part. It should also be said that I have also never heard of anyone removing an "Early life" section from a biographical article before, since the purpose of such an article is to inform the reader about the persons life. And, I intend to do just that by expanding the "Early life" section as time permits. --Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On a technical note - removing legitimate content does not render an edit illigitimate, an act of vandalism of a NPOV violation. Rob cowie 21:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See my comments above. --Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You and I have different ideas of what Wikipedia is all about. But...Please Yourself Rob cowie 09:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Show me the error of my ways. Point me to a biographical article that has had the "Early life" section removed. Or, are you setting a new precedent? --Viriditas | Talk 10:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Below you suggest that 'It is not over, and won't be for some time'. However, you have explained to me that this is a biographical article. If that is the case, 'It' as you put it most certainly is over. Are you now suggesting that this article is NOT about the woman, but about the circumstances and peculiarities of her death and the discussion thereof? If you are, my comments still stand - this is not biographical and the first paragraph is irrelevant. Perhaps you are suggesting that this article is both? Rob cowie 12:30, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you are on about, but without resorting to calling you a troll, I'm going to ask that we just stick to discussing this article. Your argument for removing the early life section does not seem to be clear. --Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well then, I suggest you pay more attention to you posts. A quick glance at your contributions to this site (many of which are very good) leads one to believe you are addicted to arguments. Please, for the sake of this site, think about what you are posting in a more logical manner.Rob cowie

Please focus on the article instead of editors. --Viriditas | Talk 06:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fork

I propose we split this article into Terri Schiavo (which is her biography) and Schiavo vs. Schindler (which describes the legal battle). Much the same way we have Amber Hagerman and AMBER Alert --Vik Reykja ♬ 22:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to split because of its size, but my gut tells me to keep it as is. People will be coming to this article expecting to see the controversy. Then again; perhaps a distinction (split) should be made to clarify Terry was the subject of the debate, but not in the debate given her unfortunate circumstances. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RoyBoy, right now people who come to Wikipedia for this article probably want the full rundown. It should probably be kept in its present state until new information stops surfacing, (hopefully that means a week or two after the autopsy report is released). After that point, it will probably be a good idea to break this article down into two or more component parts. --CVaneg 23:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Same here, although I'm sure Terri Schiavo had an interesting life, the majority of wikipedia users will want to read about the controversy. bernlin2000 ∞ 16:12, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It's best to keep this in one coherent article in order to control unnecessary duplication. Neutrality^talk 02:20, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I was going to create a few daughters for this article; unfortunately my exam timetable has interfered slightly. However, I agree with CV and Roy that for the time being, seperation isn't the wisest course of action. Professor Ninja 21:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

It hardly matters at this point. The article is so full of falsehoods that it is of little use to anyone, except as propaganda designed to mislead people. NCdave 03:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that a propagandist would accuse others of propaganda, Eh, NCDave? Prove the falsehoods! Your opinion is not fact. Wjbean 17:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)