Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

A new edit is needed

The courts that have heard this case have all sided with Mr. Schiavo, but her family has vigorously appealed the courts' decisions and sought to prevent her death.

This is paragraph three of the heading on the article. The problem now with this is that there is now a new court that will be hearing the case. The wording must be changed to reflect that not all courts that have heard the case have ruled death. The last time I made an edit, vital information was completely removed from the opening statements. I do not know fully the rules of this encyclopedia, but if there is no opposition I would like it to read as follows:

All courts that have heard this case have sided with Mr. Schiavo, with the exception of the Federal District Court of Tampa, who is now reviewing the case. Her family has ......

If I hear no opposition to this in two hours I am going to change the article, and hope it is not erased.

--Cvnl 21:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a touch wordy, no? How about The State courts that have heard this case ... to prevent her death. However, after the signing of Terri's Law, the option is now before Federal courts.Professor Ninja 21:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not how the situation should be explained. The federal courts, in the form of the US Supreme Court, had the opportunity to review the state court decision. The Supremes chose not to. The new hearings, which are a result of a private bill passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bush, should not be explained as though this is a normal procedure of federal judicial review - normal judicial review was already exercised, and has, like the state court proceedings, now been invalidated by legislative action by the US Congress. This is a practically unheard of thing, and should not be made to seem regular. I think the statement as it stands is perfectly appropriate. There should be a further explanation of what is going on now. john k 22:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the way you word it Proffesor Ninja. Please write up the full replacement so we can look at it. I think the way you have it explains the situation very well. This is not a normal situation from the beggining. To try and write it without talking about irregularities would require the entire piece to be erased...

--Cvnl 22:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Professor Ninja's "wording" isn't quite accurate. All the courts that have heard the case until this point does include one federal court, even if you don't count the two or three times the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the case. Perhaps the simplest way to put this is that "All courts to have rendered a decision in the case thus far have sided with Michael Schiavo," or something to that effect. SS451 23:06, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's another bit of wording I don't like... "sided with". It seems semi-POV, not that it is, just that it sort of sounds like a judicial game of red rover. "Found for" might be better.

Professor Ninja 14:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

State and Federal Legal Implications of the Terri Schiavo case?

This new section added by user:Sandover is probably something that should be explored but in it's current state it has several problems. First of all it's written in a personal narrative (our, we) and second it borders on being original research and a personal essay. Sandover, If you could make it more neutral and with less speculation it would be worthy of inclusion in my opinion. And please remember we're not all Americans here :) Preisler 22:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The extended Santorum quote takes this way off topic. It belongs on Rick Santorum if anywhere. DJ Clayworth 22:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree — after a minute it didn't look right to my own (jaundiced) NPOV eyes, so I cut it. But I do think the Federal/State legal aspects need to be addressed, perhaps on another page related to this one. I've admired Wikipedia for handling Terri Schiavo so far. Quite a fascinating challenge. Sandover 22:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The extended discussion of the Federal Marriage Amendment in this section currently appears to be meaningless in the context of Terri Schaivo... of course, I can see where a connection might be drawn between a federal effort to define marriage, and the effect of an act of Congress that effectively undermine's the power of states to determine the rights of a partner in relation to the marriage - but this needs to be explained, not just lumped in here. --BD2412 22:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dropped this entire section, as it was highly speculative. We don't know what grounds Judge Whittemore will rule on--he could easily invalidate the law authorizing his jurisdiction over the case as an unacceptable legislative encroachment into judicial matters, or as violating principles of federalism. Really, I think this sort of a section jumps the gun. We should wait to see how the judge rules before we try and tease out his rationale. I don't think we'll have to wait long. SS451 23:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This is not a news site, we are not under any obligation to speak about events when there's really nothing concrete to say. The last thing we need to worry about is padding this article, it needs pruning more than it needs additions. Fox1 06:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I feel there should be a section in the article explaining the perceived legal importance and potential implications of this case, from both sides obviously, even if the matter hasn't been ultimately settled yet. Party because I suspect that it might still be quite a while before that happens, but more importantly because that information is more or less necessary to fully understand the enourmous interest in the case, and why so many authorities and organizations have raised their voices on the subject. Shouldn't this page be helpful even to people who have no prior knowledge of the case, no exposure to the debates in the media? I'd speculate that many non-americans who access this page have very little knowledge of Ms. Schiavo before, and might be puzzled about why so many people seem to take such an interest in Ms. Schiavo's fate. Note that I don't feel a section like this would require speculation on the part of the editor; all that is needed is to summarize the speculations and beliefs of people on either side of the conflict, to help clarify their views. It would probably also be worthwhile to quote accusations of hidden political agendas and unapropriate ideological bias, as long as it's done NPOV. Which might be an interesting challeng :)MMad 10:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If editors want to do this, and I'm kind of on the fence about it, it really seems to me like it needs to be made a separate page. An addition like that could really get page bloating running completely out of control. The sheer number of different factors which could easily merit inclusion in a discussion like that could get very huge, very fast. Right of the top of my head, you can draw connections to states rights, "judicial activism," what Slate called "Congressional activism," euthanasia, religion, Tom Delay, abortion, medicare/medicaid, the 10th amendment, separation of powers, and seriously, I've been up way too long to try and do this list without repeating myself.

Fox1 12:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've been looking up on some other cases like Terri's, found another case of PVS, in the case of Nancy Cruzan. In this case, the parents of Cruzan had wanted to take out the feeding tube from their daughter. The dispute went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, in which they had ruled to keep in the tube, for their parents did not give enought evidence to show that Cruzan didn't want to stay alive. YET, when they tok the case to Missouri courts with evidence, the courts ruled to pull the tube from Cruzan. So, what I believe is the major key to this case is, did she or didn't she want to live, even though she is in a vegative state? -Shin Gouki

I strongly suggest both sides read this [report], written by the guardian appointed under "Terri's Law". It is a very NPOV account of the entire case and may serve well as a basis for redrafting the article without bias.--Lazarias 01:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added a section to the article called Interest in Living Wills in order to highlight the increased interest Americans are showing in living wills, and the implications of having such documents.
JesseG 19:33, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Guardianship - Removal Pending

I propose removing the following paragraph unless a better citation for it can be found:

In a September 27, 1999 deposition, he told why he refused to turn over guardianship to Ms. Schiavo's parents. He said it was, "because they put me through pretty much hell the last few years [with] the litigations they put me through [and] their attitude towards me because of the litigations. There is no other reason and that her parents wouldn't carry out her wishes."

The citation for it is http://www.zimp.org/stuff/contradictions.htm - not good enough for direct citation within the article itself. If anyone is in love with this paragraph and insists on keeping it, please find a better citation. I will be removing it later this evening unless a better citation is found.

--AStanhope 23:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) Have spouse abandonment & President Bush signing a stay of execution been brought up for discussion?

Links to parents

I reverted the edits by Rickyrab linking Michael and the parents, as their names are just redirects to Terri Schiavo and serve no purpose linked. Mike H 04:36, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Characteristics of Michael Schiavo

Judging from what I've read of Michael Schiavo online, he appears to have the following characteristics:

1. He appears to have a working knowledge of law and uses rhetoric to his advantage;
2. He may or may not have used violence against wives and/or girlfriends, but he appears to have a temper;
3. His role in the making of Terri Schiavo's apparent Rip van Winkle condition is debatable (either Terri's bulemia did it, or Michael did it, or a combination of the two did it, or something entirely different did it, or any combo of the above).
4. The parents of Terri may be attempting Character assassination against Michael Schiavo. However, if independent witnesses come forward testifying against Michael, saying he was abusive, etc., that may be evidence against character assassination.
5. The sides in this case so far, in my opinion, all seem to have vested interests at stake, up to and including Judge Greer. Thus, I don't see much chance at finding a good, solid NPOV in this case.

Rickyrab 04:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what constructive point you're trying to make, but I'll respond because of your last point. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and, in particular, pay attention to passages such as this:

"The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly. The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. It is crucial that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased. This comprises one of the great merits of Wikipedia.

As you can see, it's not at all necessary for a single unbiased viewpoint to exist in order to create an article with NPOV.

Fox1 06:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Characteristics of Terri's parents

1. The parents appear to be Catholic, and they appear to have an emotional interest in their daughter.
2. They also seem to have a grudge against Michael. I do not know if this is related to Terri's condition, but it may well be.

Rickyrab 04:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And your point is? Moncrief 05:58, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

That we ought to do biographies of both Mr. Schiavo and Terri's parents and put them in the encyclopedia. Rickyrab 06:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, insofar as they are not at all notable except in their involvement in this case. I'm also not sure what useful information we could place in those articles that is not already in the existing article.

Fox1 12:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk Page

Except for the most recent discussion, and the top discussions about the use of the talk page, I have moved the old Terri discussion into archives. Mike H 09:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wording about Schiavo's condition

The page says the following: The Schiavos' personal physicians, and all other doctors unconnected to either party, have since 1991 contended that she is in a persistent vegetative state.

Technically speaking, have -all- unconnected doctors contended this? It may need some rewording, but I'm not familiar enough with the situation to do it myself. --NeuronExMachina 10:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand the point that the author was trying to make, but I'm not sure if there's any way to state it that's not massively unwieldy. Something like "all doctors who have conducted physical examinations of Ms. Schiavo, and whose services have not been specifically retained by Mr. and Mrs. Schindler have since 1991...." I think that's factual, to my admittedly limited knowledge, but I sure don't know if it should be in the article text. It seems like a lot of validation is needed to make the intended point.

Fox1 13:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A section is also needed to explain the cause of her "collapse": a potassium imbalance caused by bulimia (see this: [1]). Also, "collapse" is unneccessarily vague. Mrs. Schiavo died of a heart attack. (I say died because (obviously) I believe she has been dead for 15 years.) I think it would also be appropriate to add a segment about how the lesson of her death by bulimia, and its tragic lesson for society, is being drowned out by the debate over what to do with her body. -Kasreyn

P.S. particularly revolting was a right-wing news website which mentioned the potassium imbalance and then fatuously went on and on about how a healthy young woman with no other diseases could have a heart attack. Hiding the truth is so easy, all you have to do is not say it, apparently. -Kasreyn

Politics and Pundits

Powerline and Jim Geraghty have raised allegations about the Republican "talking points memorandum" about the poltical ramifications of the Schiavo case possibly being a fake. This is sourced and should not be deleted.

Powerline (blog), Jim Geraghty of National Review Online, and Michelle Malkin have raised allegations of the talking memo being a potential forgery. So has Mickey Kaus at Slate (Magazine). For some reason User:Neutrality keeps deleting it without comment. It may or may not be true, but the allegations have been made and are newsworthy.

I've changed it back after the Powerline passage was deleted. I agree with the memo, BUT I want to be neutral. Saopaulo1 08:12, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I added the blog cites so they can be refered to, but left the names off. 24.18.59.229 03:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added the blog cites back after they were again deleted with no comment. I also pointed out the variance on both sides of the argument. I made the Village Voice reference NPOV. I also added the recent comments of William F. Buckley, Jr. 24.18.59.229 04:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again the Powerline cite was deleted, again without comment. I corrected it. 24.18.59.229 05:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting record on S686

The article claims that for S686: "Only three Senators, Bill Frist (R-TN), Rick Santorum (R-PA), and Mel Martinez (R-FL), were present."

However, according to the Congressional Record [2], just from the names listed, Senators Byrd and Levin at the very least were present.

Can anyone shed some light on this? It was a voice vote, so we don't know exactly how everyone voted, but it seems clear that others were there. -- Kaszeta 16:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Congressional Record often includes speeches by members who were not present, inserted after the fact as if they were present. So, unless it records a roll call (and it doesn't here), the CR may not be reliable as to who was present.

Reference? The material at the CR implies that material added after the fact is are "Extensions of Remarks" [3]. That, and the fact the the comments by Levin and Byrd involve back-and-forth with the Acting Senate President Pro Temp seem to make it clear that at least 5 members of the Senate were there. Thus, I'm editing the article. -- Kaszeta 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iraq link?

"Although Michael Schiavo has repeatedly declared his motive for disconnecting Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is to carry out the wishes of his wife not to live in a persistant vegitative state, many believe he may have ulterior motives for his supposedly altruistic actions."

Why on earth is that last half sentence linked to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq?

I see someone removed that whole thing. Good. Jonathunder 17:14, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Although I agree that such a hidden link is inappropriate for Wikipedia, one would have to be hiding under a rock to ask "why on earth." Kingturtle 17:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not hiding under a rock and I don't understand it. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps she is registered for the armed forces and Michael doesn't want her to be forced to go to war in iraq. (finally human cannonfodder that isn't a bit overqualified)Gmaxwell 01:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well living in a cave and never going out is the same thing as living in a rock DJ so you are :-P (don't take this the wrong way, I'm just surprised that someone using Wiki wouldn't get this, whether you agree with it or not is up to you). BTW if you really don't get it and are not just pretending for whatever reason, think of it this way. Who was the primary voice for invading Iraq and wasn't this a supposedly altruistic action? As said, it's wrong to do such a thing in Wiki but seriously, if you didn't get this, well I don't know how to help you.

Exactly. 199 15:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duplication Removal

It looks like someone accidentally duplicated the article when they were editing, so I reverted to the last non-duplicated version. It didn't look like I missed any important edits, but it was rather hard to tell. Appologies if I removed anything important --19:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• So did I but slightly later than you. It seems that I did revert some legitimate (albeit minor) edits. I apologize for that. --Vik Reykja 19:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is Sun Hudson relevant to this?

In terms of the law recently signed by President Bush, is his role as governor during the passage of the law in the precedent-setting Sun Hudson case relevant to comparisons with this case? I feel, personally, yes. It is a valid comparison of cases even without Bush's involvement, but the involvement makes it moreso relevant to expanding one's knowledge of the politics which have become attached to Terri Schiavo's case. Professor Ninja 19:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You've already mentioned Sun Hudson. Are you trying to debate the issue here or actually ask someone to incorporate this into the article? If you're doing the former, that's not what Talk pages are for. If you're doing the latter, be bold and do it yourself. Mike H 22:36, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have already mentioned it, an I finished expanding the stub that was created earlier. I'm not attempting to debate the issue, I question its relevance. Given NCdave's creation of edit wars, I'm in no mood to follow suit and start a downward spiral of reversion. I, personally, feel that Sun Hudson is relevant to this case, for multiple reasons, but in the interest of avoiding stirring the pot unnecessarily, I wanted other's input. I also appreciate the fact that I've brought it up, but that's been archived, and I don't expect people to sift through archives to chase down what might and might not have been said on talk pages. So. Professor Ninja 22:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sun Hudson would only be relevant if there was a parallel. Since there are differences then there is no relevance. There may well be a point in have a Sun Hudson article in its own right. Sun Hudson was not in a position to breathe unadided. Terri Schiavo can. In law, her husband exercises her rights.--ClemMcGann 01:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sun Hudson, b. 09/25/2004, d. 03/15/2005 Preisler 01:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I've gotta say that there's some interesting parallels between them and the two cases have been juxtaposed in various news outlets plus the Daily Show had a hilarious (albeit very sad in some way) bit about it. So a see also link or something like that might be appropriate. But I have to admit this kind of double standards pisses me of so I might not be neutral on this. Preisler 01:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok, the Sun Hudson is interesting, but it won't influence, no more than the case of George Joseph Smith would. The issue is, who exercises the rights of a wife who cannot speak for herself, the law her husband does. --ClemMcGann 02:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only who could have expressed an opinion for him, his mother Wanda, did so, repeatedly, informing hospital officials that she did not want Sun's breathing tube removed. They went ahead and did it anyway, and, in an even more interesting parallel, under a law then-Gov. Bush enrolled. Which passed unopposed through the Tex. legislature. I'll make no secret of which side I'm on on this. But I find the article very informative, especially for double standards. After all, isn't any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia, to provide relevant information? Wouldn't somebody come to Terri Schiavo searching for right to die/right to life/euthanasia/culture of life and want to read a related case (even if the Advance Directives Act hadn't been passed by Texas Republicans, it's still relevant and I put it in the core ethical issues category, because Sun Hudson was the first person ever to be removed from life support in absence of any advance directives (ie: living will or DNR orders, which is pretty obvious given he was six months old) or without consent from his legal guardian or next of kin, and its precedent setting, especially for Spiro... last name's hard to spell from memory... who's in a severe PVS and is facing a similar termination of life support despite the family's opposition. I take it, however, that MikeH doesn't mind, Presler and me say yes, and ClemMcGann has objections from an angle I'm not really operating on. Clem, I'm saying that it's relevance in its similarity. The price of gold doesn't really influence the price of silver, but they both belong on the periodic table, yes? Same thing -- Sun Hudson won't effect a single thing about Terri's case, but somebody seeking similar information to Terri's case might be interested in similar cases as this. I suppose I'll add a see also section then.Professor Ninja

Ok, put a Sam Hudson link in. However many see a difference between not artificially breathing and feeding a person. To put this in a Catholic context and Terri is Catholic, see [4]
2278 would permit ‘Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome’
2279 would insist on food, ‘the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted’ That is my understanding.
Ninja sees relevance in similarity. I see irrelevance in dissimilarity.
So, ok, leave that Sam Hudson link in.
I’m not going to argue for a link to George Joseph Smith. He denied his in-laws access to their daughter. He said that she did not want to speak to them. This wasn’t verified. The courts sided with him, since he was her husband. --194.125.111.194 09:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) --ClemMcGann 09:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not see a difference between not feeding a person and not allowing a person to breathe. Both are being done in these cases by mechanical bypasses of non-functioning or subpar functioning organs and muscles to sustain life. Sustenance, hydration, and respiration are all required for living; if Michael Schiavo was to asphyxiate his wife, would his detractors then be okay with it? I Doubt it. I'm fairly certain (and this coming from somebody raised in the Catholic church) that asphyxiating somebody is also contrary to Catholicism, and if it was possible, holding your breath until you died would also be a sin. Furthermore, to claim that continuing to feed Terri is disproportionate to the expected outcome is ludicrous. If you want to stretch your imagination with the assertion that George Joseph Smith is thus similar to Terri Schiavo, why not accept the actual fact that even if we accept that with treatment, Terri will recover, it is still true that as time passes, mortality approaches 1.0 -- if you really want to stretch your imagination, all medical treatment is thereby futile because all people die. If you want to allege that Terri is a practicing Catholic and would thereby not starve herself to death, you have quite the hurdle in her bulemia in that is nearly exactly what she did. Her parents assert that she is a practicing Catholic, that is allegation. I too go to token masses on Easter and Christmas, I don't consider myself a Catholic for example. Furthermore the assertion that the religion has anything to do with it is immaterial and may prove a double edge sword; If it is found that Sun was baptised or otherwise inducted into a particular sect that believes asphyxia is contrary to their religious beliefs but death by dehydration isn't, we now have another similarity. Rather, instead, I will illustrate the similarities: The breathing and feeding tubes kept Sun and Terri alive, respectively. In both instances a law was created to allow the overriding of the legal guardian's wishes, despite the contradictory consequences. Both are core bioethics issues, Terri in that it sets a possible precedent (despite the phrasing of the law that it will not, it is still possible that future legislations use this as an example to create further laws) for Federal intervention in State affairs, and the rights of the guardian. Sun in that it sets a precedent by jurisprudential excercise. Etc., etc. I'm more than welcome to hear valid reasons why they're dissimilar, and I won't dismiss reasons out of hand, but throwing out serial killers and dubious religious connotations in a legal matter, I'm afraid, does not illustrate dissimilarity.Professor Ninja 17:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between not feeding a person and mechanically breathing for them. We all need food. You do not see that difference. You consider the Hudson baby to be relevant. If you are of that opinion, then some others may be. Therefore have the link. --ClemMcGann 23:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is little difference between not feeding a person through a tube and not giving them oxygen through a tube; it is the difference between which molecular structure goes to which organ. We all need oxygen. What is the difference?Professor Ninja 03:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It perhaps belongs in the article, but not because we determine it to be of interest and connected. That is a violation of policy. It might, however, belong, because others have made the connection - some liberal bloggers, at least, and possibly in more mainstream sources. But I'm not sure whether this qualifies as enough of a connection to merit inclusion. john k 06:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm basing my belief on its relevance of inclusion on the fact that it (and the case of PVS man Spiro Nikolouzos) have been both brought up in ref. to Terri Schiavo -- I had not heard of either of these people prior to their comparisons to the Terri Schiavo case, and furthermore, the Houston Chronicle makes a direct comparison in refuting the allegation that Terri would be allowed to die under Chapter 166. My belief of relevance is not based on my personal bias (though my bias does indicate it irrespective) but because of the relevance others have found, and that others looking for information may wish to find. Thus, I've included it.Professor Ninja 06:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reverts on vandalism

I attempted to revert this page twice, labeling it with variants of "rv vandalism". Nothing happened. I then inserted a period, which worked. I then reverted by cutting and pasting, which worked, accompanied by ye label "Vandals were at work". I then inserted a period, titled this a revert, and then reversed my own addition of a period without trouble. What gives? Rickyrab 02:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can't revert with labeling alone if that's what you tried? Check this out: Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism Preisler 03:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hehe.. Just checked your userpage and I'm beginning to doubt you would do something like that :) I guess I don't quite understand what problem you've been having. Preisler 03:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Turns out that the vandal had reverted his/her own edits, and I missed that technicality. oops. Rickyrab 21:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Neutrality seems to be deleting lots from the Terri Schiavo page without any discussion. These deletes are cited materials. This is not NPOV.