Talk:Terri Schiavo/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Terri's weight - Question about discrepency

In the Wiki Article Terri's highest weight is listed as 200 lbs. In Wolfson's report to Jeb Bush it is listed as 250 lbs. Wolfson's is the only court document I've found a weight listed in, so I am wondering where the 200 figure came from.

All the accounts I have read put her peak weight at "around" 200 lbs. From the photographic record, I can't see a point in the timeline when she could actually be 5' 4" and 250 lbs. (Has anyone seen a photo of Terri at 250 lbs.?) The Wolfson Report has its own point of view and its own errors: Look a few lines down and you will see "bare witness" rather than "bear witness". I don't think this is such a big deal. "200" is the number that appears in numerous interviews with former friends from Philadelphia and her family, and only they would be in a position to know, so where Wolfson got "250" in December 2003 is a bit of a mystery. I would go with the consensus of these independent interviews rather than Wolfson on this one. patsw 14:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if an error of 250 is in the same vein as bare/bear. The latter is a simple homophone confusion that pops up as a typographic error to pretty much everybody. The former is something entirely different; 250 doesn't sound like 200, it doesn't look like it, and the keys are far enough apart to preclude it from being a simple mistype. I don't think they're similar at all in terms of errors; maybe a different example would be better. As it stands, it's possible that the estimation of "around" 200 lbs. just took her girth, not her weight, into account and fired off an approximation, 250 lbs. may have come from a more accurate source. Though the point you raise about 5'4" @ 250 lbs. is a good one, I don't think it's totally improbable. Professor Ninja 15:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Newsweek writes, "By 1981, in her senior year at an all-girls Roman Catholic high school, she had reached as much as 250 pounds—at which point she went on a NutriSystem diet and quickly lost about 100 pounds." The link is currently in the article after the weight, but somebody changed the weight to 200. --Viriditas | Talk 00:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't there be more credence to the Wolfson report, as he had the opportunity to review the court record and--more importantly--her medical records (weight loss being an important part of her medical record, esp. for the medmal case), rather than anecdotal evidence (my god, how many people really tell their friends/family their real weight and are really accurate in assessing someone's weight unless they have reason to be an expert in that area?). (Also, there was a previous discussion on this in Archive 15: Early life-Weight Loss Discrepency.) Additionally, please be careful when bandying about the word "error"--there is a major difference between factual error and a typo, legal error and a typo, etc. Thanks.--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 17:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unusually stiff neck

I had put this bullet list in last night and it was removed. Why I don't know. Symptoms of Bulemia and/or Anorexia

       * Eating uncontrollably (Bulemia only), purging, strict dieting, fasting, vigorous exercise
       * Vomiting or abusing laxatives or diuretics in an attempt to lose weight.
       * Vomiting blood
       * Using the bathroom frequently after meals.
       * Preoccupation with body weight
       * Depression or mood swings. Feeling out of control.
       * Swollen glands in neck and face
       * Heartburn, bloating, indigestion, constipation
       * Irregular periods
       * Dental problems, sore throat
       * Weakness, exhaustion bloodshot eyes

From the link http://www.mamashealth.com/bulimia.asp. Please note that dental problems (loss of calcium) could also explain the joint and leg problems. Wjbean 14:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Length

Am I the only one who thinks the article is way too long? By just looking at how long it is, I feel scared by the thought of reading it. No offence against Terri and her family, but she was not that important. I mean, this must be the biggest article on Wikipedia. R.I.P. Terri.
EliasAlucard|Talk 16:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
No, you are 100% correct in regards to the article length, and we are in the process of splitting the article to bring it down to size. --Viriditas | Talk 15:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I copied some stuff into the section about the relationship between Michael and teh Schindlers. The hope is that soem of the stuff could be taken out of the section specific to Michael or specific to the Schindlers, since it involves both sides. I haven't done that yet. won't get to it tonight probably. So, right now, it looks like duplicate text. Sorry, but if you're looking for places to trim, that would be one place. The valentine's day argument should really be in the relationship section, not just the Schindlers. FuelWagon 23:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Web Accessibility

Text of 1998 petition to remove Terri's feeding tube, i.e., discontinue "artifical life support" and "artificial sustenance" [1]

Please comment if you cannot access this linked page or if you believe it to be a forgery, or if you know where there is another archive of it. patsw 15:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't access that file. --Viriditas | Talk 15:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can access the file fully; furthermore I stand corrected on two grounds, first the assumption that Michael would have inherited a portion of the estate had he divorced prior to her death. Apparently Florida law does cover such a proviso, and second this seems to be the basis for Michael's assertion that Terri's parents also had a financial conflict of interest, which I had previously dismissed out of hand. Consider my foot squarely in my mouth. Professor Ninja 18:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
The claim that the Schindler's were motivated by their financial interest in the estate has been consistently denied by them. Since they had maintained from the start their intention to sustain the life of and help rehabilitate Terri, it is certain that they would spend the malpractice settlement funds -- if it had been made available to them -- for the duration for which the award was made: for the remainder of her natural life even if she did not recover more brain function. Michael, as we have learned, wanted to implement what he characterized as Terri's wishes to die by dehydration and starvation. (Something he failed to disclose during the malpractice trial.) If such wishes were implemented in 1996, his financial interest would be substanially greater. To accuse the Schindlers of a desire to become "rich" on the malpractice award is after all this is cruel and nonsense. Terri's death by court order in 1996 would have yielded a substantial payday for Michael. On the other hand, for the Schindlers to have been awared guardianship in 1996 would mean a long and uncertain future and perhaps a substantial financial burden in the care of Terri until the end of her natural life. patsw 18:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The same criticisms apply to the characterization of Michael Schiavo. My point wasn't that these accusations were right or wrong, it was that these accusations have some ground in legal reality. I had previously dismissed Michael's assertion that the Schindlers stood to profit as patently ridiculous, however it seems such a situation is possible under Florida law. Furthermore, Michael didn't assert that Terri stated she wanted to die by dehydration and starvation -- to claim this is, ironically, the very type of characterization you seem to take issue with. Michael asserted that Terri would not want to be kept on life support if she was unsalvagable. To state that he didn't claim this during the malpractice trial is a moot point; Michael petitioned the court to remove the feeding tube after Terri's physician indicated Terri would not recover well after the malpractice trial. It would be 1) irrelevant to the malpractice trial to offer such testimony and 2) irrelevant to the idea that Michael, during the malpractice trial, may very well have believed that Terri stood a chance for recovery which changed when her physician informed him should would not stand such a chance. Be careful where you're going with this, you're bordering on becoming the next NCdave. Professor Ninja 18:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I find the POV you show to be inherent in referring to a feeding tube to be "life support". There is no consensus among the American public that a feeding tube is at the same level of intervention in the process of living and dying as mechanical assistance to replace the organic function of a heart, lung, kidney, or liver. Clarity in using the term "feeding tube" to refer to "life support" as the court petitions do is essential to removing POV from the article.
Another POV running through the article is that the would not recover condition is certain in Terri's particular case or even relevant to the intrinsic worth of human life in public policy and medical ethics. While it would not have been relevant to disclose these wishes during the trial, it would have been relevant for Michael to diclose these wishes to the Schindler family in 1990 rather than 1998. Finally, the fact that this particular court found no inherent value in Terri's life because of testimony that Terri would not recover does make it a neutral point of view. It merely makes it one point of view among many. patsw 19:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Right, and very well put! Except that I think that it is uncontested (though irrelevant) that Terri could never recover, meaning that she would never be fully normal. However, it is not established that her condition could not have improved, with treatment/therapy. Quite a few physicians and speech therapists gave their professional opinions, some of them under oath, that they believed that improvement in her condition was possible. Their expectations for the extent of that improvement varied, but there was one way to find out, and that was to try. However, she was not given any therapy at all since 1992. NCdave 00:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Florida law defines a feeding tube as life support. That isn't POV. If you wanted to go for the stretch then there's no real consensus among the American public on anything. However, since the American public isn't relevant to this, only the Florida public, then all that matters is Florida law. Which says that a feeding tube is life support. Period. As for your assertion that people who contend that removal of life support constitutes worth of human life is patently ridiculous; you're spouting off the fallacy of equivocation. Nobody but the most degraded of vandals (and even then they're in the vast minority of vandals) claims that Terri Schiavo's life had no worth. You're very, very rapidly turning into the next NCdave. Professor Ninja 19:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix the POV problem around this. In the "feeding tube" section, I started out by saying that Florida law defines a feeding tube to be life support. Those who wanted to keep Terri alive preferred the term "feeding tube" because it is emotive. food is emotive, so is the empathetic response of readers to think about "starving to death". Never mind that Terri was PVS and can't feel anything. So, "feeding tube" is good for their POV. Those who thought Terri wouldn't want to be kept alive in her condition likely preferred the term "life support" precisely because it is less emotive and more connotative. Life Support connotates images of a bank of machines keeping someone alive, someone who is comatose or unconscious, and someone who is never going to recover. I'm not sure if teh article should say "life support" or "feeding tube" always, or if the Schindlers invocation of emotive language should be reflected in the article or what. I believe that Terri would have never recovered and I believe that she was PVS, unconscious, unaware, and couldn't feel. And mainly because she fits the connotation of "life support" more than she fits the emotive image of "feeding tube", I'd tend towards "life support". As to the "would not recover" comment, I know several neutral doctors diagnosed Terri as such, and that's a NPOV fact to report. non-neutral sources can be quoted to say otherwise, but their bias needs to be noted in teh article as well. FuelWagon 20:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Florida law says its life support; thus life support is the correct term. Life support connotes nothing but something which supports life beyond the means of the body. If this is an iron lung with "banks of machines" or simple intubation is not relevant. Life support is the correct NPOV term. Professor Ninja 20:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


Here is the section of florida statute that defines artificial sustenance and hydration as a "life-prolonging procedure." It is from F.S. 765.101.

10) "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.

In the first paragraph, I'd prefer something along the lines of "The judicial and legislative battles surrounding the discontinuation of Schiavo's artificially provided sustenance and hydration generated tremendous media coverage during the last two weeks of her life and prompted a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights."

It is most legally precise. I realize I'll be chided for wanting to use a euphemism to describe the situation, but please believe that is not my intent. My intent is to be as precise as possible and that precision involves using the same language that Florida Statutes use; indeed, sticking to the statute language necessarily resolves POV disputes, since it is the law of the land. I can see, though, that the sentence is awkward, so, feel free to mess with it if you'd like! (:--Minaflorida 20:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would greatly like to hug you for that, Minaflorida. What a wonderful legal eagle you are. Hopefully this will tone down the accusations of POV on this subject. Is it correct, then, or euphemistic to refer to "life-prolonging procedure" as "life support"? Professor Ninja 20:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if it would be correct or not. Florida statutes do not use the terminology "life support" but its definition is nearly identical to the statute's definition of a "life-prolonging procedure." The danger in using "life support" as opposed to "life-prolonging procedure" is that it is not the proper legal term for artificially provided sustenance and nutrion--much like partial-birth abortion was not an appropriate legislative term because it was not the proper medical term for the process described in Federal legislation, but I digress. (; Unless we can verify that the majority of doctors in the state of Florida actually refer to life-prolonging procedures as "life support," (which I surmise is true, but that's not good enough) I'd lean toward using the bulky and awkward, yet accurate terms. I am not entirely opposed to using "life support," as it is factually accurate. Feeding tube, however, is accurate as well. Since there has been such a charged discussion on these terms, I think it's best to make everyone happy (presumably) by using the specific legal terms. "Artificially provided sustenance and hydration" refers both to the fact that it was life support and the fact that it was a feeding tube. I'm no legal eagle. I'm just a language lover. Additonally, I work for the Legislature and have gotten really good at navigating our statutes. (: Thanks for the compliment.--Minaflorida 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
there was actually a discussion on this subject already -- see archive 15 life support v. feeding & hydration where I point out life-prolonging procedures is the technical term in Florida, although life-support is equally acceptable, quote the statute, touch upon In re Browning, etc. Using Florida's precise term doesn't seem to make anyone happy (except, apparently, those of us who live and work in Florida). Good luck (keep trying!)Mia-Cle 21:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I absolutely missed that in all the clutter, Mia-Cle. Actually I think this has been argued ad nauseum by everybody by now, so. Professor Ninja 22:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
It has been argued ad nauseum, and probably will continue to be ad infinitum. oh well. (It's really arguing a distinction without a difference--although I haven't done the legal research, I sincerely doubt that there is any legal distinction between "life-supporting," "life-sustaining," "life-maintaining," or "life-prolonging.") However, I am very happy to see "life-prolonging procedures" in the article as those are the words we use in Fla. It'll be interesting to see how long it lasts (call me a cynic).Mia-Cle 01:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cynic? Realist. Sadly. Professor Ninja 02:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Paraphrase vs. primary source

I believe the paraphrase of the discussion of the 1993 urinary tract infection to be POV and the remedy I propose is to insert the actual Wolfson report text from which the paraphrase is derived. I am not inserting my own paraphrase but the text of the report -- how can that itself introduce POV? Over and over again editors have substituted actual external text for user submitted text to remove POV. What's different about this case? patsw 15:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, your "remedy" involved removing content from the report that you didn't like. --Viriditas | Talk 15:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legal Grist for the mill

This link, http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html, provides a detailed breakdown of all legal actions regarding Terri and Michael Shaivo. It's long, but is worth the read. Wjbean 15:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patsw - since you'll be curious why I reverted your edit

It was the definition of bloat. Adding length to the article for pure speculation is not an encyclopaedic entry whatsoever. Putting in that Felos claimed Schiavo was cremated doesn't contribute anything. As far as I can ascertain, there's absolutely no reason, no matter how far fetched, to lie about cremating somebody. Therefore we take the date of cremation prima facie. Also, saying there's no news on the burial is pointless. There's no news on alot of things; you don't go updating everything for what has no news on it. If and when this becomes relevant, then it belongs in the article. Professor Ninja 18:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

In my judgment, (1) It would proper at the start of a new section to use her first name, this is simply a concern of style. (2) News articles that you can see in News Google couched the cremation in speculative language -- so yes there was doubt. I ascertained from a news report of Felos press release that confirmed the cremation -- whom I am not doubting on this point. (3) I made the judgment that for 10 days to pass without her ashes being buried after a public promise to do so is significant and encyclopaedic. What's your threshold for taking note of the non-fulfillment of this promise? Is it 20 days, 30 days, a year?
It would be helpful for me as well as other editors, Professor Ninja, to define bloat to avoid a problem like this in the future. patsw 19:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(1) I never took issue with that, anywhere, ever. (2) Wikipedia articles are not news reports. That's what WikiNews is for. (3) Counter-point: What's your threshhold for fulfilling the promise? 9 days, 1 day, an hour? No, the threshold is if and when it becomes reasonable to include based on common sense. If it comes up that Michael Schiavo has not and does not intend to bury Terri, then it is relevant.
It would be helpful for you as well as other editors, Patsw, if you looked up what wikipedia is not and followed common sense and logical guidelines to avoid a problem like this in the future. Professor Ninja 20:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Uncited statements? Under "Michael Shiavo"

Where does the information in the below paragraph come from? There is no cite associated with it.

On May 1, 2000, a court hearing was cancelled after Schiavo said he would sign an agreement that his wife will get necessary medical treatment at a hospice instead of a hospital or a long-term care facility, in violation of the malpractice settlement. Then on June 18, after reneging on his agreement, Schiavo signed an amended agreement stating he will not withdraw or terminate his wife's medical care or treatment for potential fatal infections, without prior notice to the court.

Has anyone seen the malpractice settlement? How do we know that the agreement referred to was in violation of it? Moreover, I find the statement "after reneging on his agreement" unnecssarily pejorative and therefore prejudicial and POV. Do we have evidence of the second agreement? LRod 216.76.216.142 20:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add this nor would I. Part of the issues faced in 2000 was the concern that Terri would receive less than appropriate care in a hospice than a registered nursing care facility. As part of an agreement to cease litigating her transfer from Palm Gardens Nursing Home to Woodside Hospice, the agreement to treat Terri for infections was drawn up. The interval from May 1 to June 18 to get a simple agreement signed is used in Terri's advocacy sites as an example of Michael's bad faith, pettiness, and indifference to Terri's suffering.
As for the malpractice settlement, as with all the documents which the court or the Schindlers did not make public, Michael hasn't made this public nor does he have an obligation to do so. This is the primary source problem I mentioned yesterday. How to judge what people say about documents which we are not likely to see. The claim is made that by accepting the malpractice award for Terri's care, the guardian had to provide care to a stipulated standard which a hospice did not have.
With reference the text that's been quoted, the relevant part is that Terri was transferred, the Schindlers objected, and that Michael and the Schindlers were divided on the question of treating Terri for infections. It may be redundant to all the disputed claims before and after June 2000 to include this. patsw 21:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about the legal requirement for a stipulated standard of care, but I do know that Michael pledged, under oath, in November, 1992, to bring Terri home as soon as he had the resources to care for her at home, and to care for Terri for the rest of her life. Two months later, he had 3/4 $million available in a medical trust account designated for Terri's care and rehabilitation. But he did not bring her home, and he never permitted a dime of that money to purchase therapy for Terri.
Here's the relevant part of the November, 1992 transcript:
       Q.    You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you. When you look up the road, what do you see for yourself?
       MS.    I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking care of my wife.

       Q.    Where do you want to take care of your wife?
       MS.    I want to bring her home.

       Q.    If you had the resources available to you, if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that?
       MS.    Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.

       Q.    How do you feel about being married to Terri now.
       MS.    I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows.

       Q.    You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?
       MS.    I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my
              wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.
Read the last three sentences again: "I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."
Note that when he said that, Terri had been incapacitated for 2-3/4 years, already.
That was a promise that Michael made, under oath, in open court... and broke just two months later.
Even so, it was five more years before he "remembered" that Terri had expressed a wish to not be kept alive in her disabled state. That "memory" didn't come to Michael Schiavo until he hired George Felos. NCdave 00:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More whack-a-mole logic from NCdave. Dave has advanced that Michael should have divorced Terri and left her to her parents (as always with this charlatan, references available upon request); then he advances that he should have kept his marriage vows. He advances that Michael didn't go to nursing school to take care of his wife (as always with this charlatan, references available upon request); then he advances that the testimony is valid as an oath to gauge his future behaviour and part of that oath includes Michael going to nursing school and caring for his wife. It cannot be both; he cannot rightly honour his marriage vows and rightly divorce her, he cannot have rightly gone to school to care for Terri and simoultaneously not have done it. NCdave wants us to pick and choose where Michael is being honest and he wants those areas to be fluid and dynamic, honest one day and binding, lies the next day, to suit his POV. Professor Ninja 01:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)