Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 7

New edit

I have just begun a new effort at copyediting. Please revert any unintentional errors. A few questions. 1) Can the nasogastric quote go in the 2nd para.? 2) Is there a problem with referring to her as Terri or will only Mrs Schiavo be acceptable? There is inconsistency in the text (e.g. a lack of "Mrs" before her name); in many works it is acceptable to vary btw. first and last name for variety, which I have proposed here. Please change it if this is wrong. 3) No doubt there are other issues. I apologize if I have overstepped anywhere. ~Dpr 22 Mar 0500 UTC

It's been discussed before, and I think the consensus was to refer to her as Ms. Schiavo, which is marriage-neutral, since apparently it's standard practice for married women whose preference (Ms. or Mrs.) isn't known. Refering to any of the involved parties with their first names seems very odd to me.. one doesn't usually refer to President Bush as "George" in articles about him. 213.112.22.95 11:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Headline text

Corrected date of ending of therapy.

Headline text

According to Dr. Wolfson's report, intensive therapy continued through 1994, not 1992 as this article originally stated.--Ringmaster 05:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, user:Dhartung, for adding pronunciation. I knew that was necessary but wasn't sure what to put. ~DPR

Photos

Are we attempting to portray a before-and-after presentation here? That may not be the best thing (nor most respectful). Besides, the photo of her today as show is a little jarring, perhaps. There must be another with her slightly more...at peace? ~DPR, 0730 UTC

The problem with photos is they're going to show a connotation no matter what one you choose. A pre-cardiac arrest will lead certain people to view her as a vibrant young woman that shouldn't be killed so horribly, others will see it as an indication that she is not that anymore and should be allowed to die with what dignity she has left. A post-cardiac arrest photo will lead the former group to see vultures circling over a helpless woman, and the latter group to see one who has no life left to lead. With this one you're really damned if you do and damned if you don't.Professor Ninja 06:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I definitely don't like the before-after photos now, because that is not the picture of Terri you see in the newspapers. Mike H 22:53, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The particular 'post' photo looks like she's responding to her mom... She isn't her head is being held up. People on the one side have picked a couple of shots that support their position out of many hours of recording where she does almost nothing interesting. The only fair way to show such photos would be to set them in context... with other pictures where she looks like a drooling vegi. .. But thats distasteful, plus people would argue that such pictures dehumanize her.. The pre photo is truely the most neutral, ... if you're too ignorant to realize she's not like that any more from the text, then you are without hope. Gmaxwell 02:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only real thing needed to be discused hear is that if it brings her family comfort to keep her alive so be it. Since she is in a vegetative state it isn't like she cares that she is being held alive. Your right she isn't responding to her mom but thats not what matters

The following swedish news article has a photo I've never seen before, and found interesting: http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,621957,00.html I don't recall seeing any other picture of Ms. Schiavo together with her husband. Kind of interesting. - MMad

You know, I said exactly what to do yesterday, but noone paid attention. Even if one photo allegedly shows a POV, it should not have been removed. Put the photo in, explain what conclusions one side wants us to draw from the photo, and explain the reasons the other side does not draw those conclusions.

Stop trying to NPOV by eliminating stuff! That's not right. We NPOV by contextualizing! Jdavidb 03:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We can't put it into context without a picture of her sitting there looking, well, non responsive. Such pictures are difficult to find, because they don't draw the emotional reaction the media desires... The mom+terri picture is fantastic for eliciting an emotional response, sadily the opposing side of this issue has more tact than to distribute pictures of terri doing nothing but drooling. I don't see anyway to put it in context without such pictures, and this was indicated in my first edit summary and (I think) the talk page text that was previously moved. Furthermore this is not just a NPOV issue, it's a factual one. Terri spends most of her time in a non responsive state, the circulated pictures were taken at convient times to cause the view to draw the conclusion that Terri is consious. I am aware that is an issue of dispute (which is well covered in the article) but the pictures available as still factually inaccurate because they strongly imply that she behaves in a responsive way on a regular basis. Are we to include factually incorrect information when we are unable to set it in context with a more typical picture?Gmaxwell 04:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Terri spends most of her time in a non responsive state, the circulated pictures were taken at convient times to cause the view to draw the conclusion that Terri is consious.

Okay, so what's wrong with just saying that? If seeing the picture plus hearing that fact was enough to convince you, shouldn't Wikipedia readers deserve the same treatment? Obviously somehow this got magically put into context for you without seeing opposing pictures. I'm not asking for anything other than for all the information that was available to you to be made available in the article. Jdavidb 04:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did the previous Talk discussion come to a consensus? Jdavidb 04:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've ranted, I looked at the current version. It's not bad. I still think it badily needs an opposing image. :) Thanks for your correction. (darn edit conflicts I was typing that as you replied) Your point is well taken, the proposed text is good. There wasn't much debate before, people said the picture was bad.. I replaced it and said why.. I think your handling of the situation is better, though another picture would make it perfect. I think what is consious on this matter is falling apart, the media has stared reporting as potential valid stuff that everone (on all sides) had considered apocryphal for years... So we may soon find the only nondisputably neutral way to phrase the entire article is with every fact bracked by he said, she said... which is unfortunate. This is

Thanks, Jdavidb 04:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Typos and Category

I fixed two typos and added Category:Core issues in ethics. --ThomasK 10:07, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I added back Category:Core issues in ethics.--ThomasK 13:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Initial medical crisis.

In the 1992 malpractice case, the doctors under suit never thought to bring up abuse by Mr. Schiavo as a defense of them. Subsequently, he has been judicially cleared of suspicion on charges of sexual abuse and battery. Therefore, claiming that he battered or raped his wife is POV and not welcome. DO NOT put such idle and unnecessary speculation back in the article. Iceberg3k 14:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

And that's supposed to prove something? 199 14:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The fact that he has been judicially cleared of suspicion should be all the proof that is needed. Iceberg3k 14:32, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The point is that speculations abound. As Jimbo says in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so". Madd4Max 14:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speculation about a husband allegedly raping and beating his wife contribute nothing of substance, and substantially color the article against him, which is a distinct slant of POV. Iceberg3k 14:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you don't agree with Wikipedia's current NPOV policies, feel free to propose a policy change. For the moment, Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. 199 14:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the current NPOV policies do not allow pure speculation, laden with bias. Speculation that Mr. Schiavo beat his wife has been adjudged to have no basis in fact in a court of law, and including that speculation colors the article unnecessarily. I am not disrupting Wikipedia, those who edited the article to include blatant POV are. That includes you. Iceberg3k 14:52, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the words "pure speculation, laden with bias" written anywhere in the NPOV policies. I do see the words "write about what people believe, rather than what is so" there. Let's keep this discussion grounded in reality, please. Madd4Max 15:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which is not the same thing as "present your personal opinions as established fact." The established facts of the case are that the courts cleared Mr. Schiavo of any suspicion of spousal abuse. Saying things like "Mr. Schiavo has not denied raping his wife" perform no function other than projecting a highly poisonous bias against a particular person. Iceberg3k 15:15, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that including statements like "Mr. Schiavo has not denied raping his wife" would serve no useful purpose in this article, and would be prejudicial. Fortunately, we have no such statements--we just air the accusations of the parents and the evidence that they've offered to support their claims. Regardless of how thin that evidence is, when this sort of accusation is repeated frequently in the media statements and court filings of the Schindler family, it needs to be addressed in an article that addresses this situation.

On a related note, we have only within the last couple days been able to fully excise the pro-Schindler-family bias that one editor was systematically injecting into this article. I'm sure no one here wants to see the bias pendulum swing the other way. Let's keep this article truly neutral. SS451 01:56, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have never denied raping my wife (I don't have one actually but if I did) and altho I'm not significant enough to be in Wiki yet, if I was I probably still wouldn't would this mean you should include this on me since you believe it (if you believe it)?

I think the relevant section of Wikipedia policy would be the following: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I don't really know which section of the Schiavo article this dispute refers to, so I can't say whether or not the policy applies. I believe that the parents of Terri Schaivo have accused Michael of abuse so I think it would be reasonable to include the accusation as long as you attribute it to them. However since it probably still falls under a minority opinion it should be illustrated as such as outlined in the following section of the NPOV policy: Npov#Giving "equal validity".--CVaneg 23:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No one is saying we shouldn't include her parents statements. What we are saying is there is no merit to include statements which only someone on Wiki is saying like "Mr. Schiavo has not denied raping his wife".--anon

Insurance

Does anyone know if there is any truth to the claims her husband has about $1million in life insurance policies (supposedly taken out on her by her husband a year b4 her bulimia incident) and what the implications will be for this is she were to die due to the removal of the feeding tube? If it's totally BS, I personally think it's worth saying that there are no life insurance policies since it's an oft made claim

Probably that misconception results from the existence of a $1,050,000 malpractice award that Michael Schiavo secured on behalf of himself and his wife in 1992. Schiavo would stand to inherit what remains of that award if/when his wife dies (the remainder is reportedly about $50,000), but that subject is taken up in the article. SS451 01:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the malpractice money. If it's indeed true that this is the only money he will directly gain from her death, then I think this needs to be mentioned coz there are a lot of people claiming the existance of this insurance money.--anon

nevermind I've done it myself. Please discuss here if you disagree with the merit of this mention

Link to how she would die

I notice the link to how she would die by AP is gone. Is there any reason for this? I appreciate it's mentioned briefly in the article but I would have thought it still worthy of inclusion due to the detail

I now see it's back along with anumber of other links. Hopefully it stays this time--anon

Ad-hoc pronounciation

I could be wrong but I was under the impression ad-hoc pronouncions were discouraged in favour of IUPAC (did I spell that right) but I only see an ad-hoc pronounciation here...

IPA. IUPAC is the International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry. Iceberg3k 18:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting of some parts needed?

Having read the article, I wonder if some parts need to be rewritten to indicate one of the aspects of most court rulings and controversial especially among conservatives is not just what her condition really is but whether anyone should have the right do overide the husbands wishes. It is alluded to in the article but I think it may need to be made clearer that this is another key aspect of the case, not just her condition.

Umm, it's apparently not her husband's wishes, but her wishes, which the Florida courts have ruled on. He's only involved in the case insofar as he has tried to prevent that from being overturned. In other words, legally, he doesn't have the power to get the tube put back in even if he did change his mind. (And thus the famous $1 million offer to him to do so was nullatory. Now, they could have offered him $1 million to withdraw from the case...) Noel (talk) 17:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but when several other guardian ad litems were successively appointed, this overrode Michael Schiavo's role in this capacity, didn't it? I keep hearing how he's her guardian, then, the court's her guardian, a doctor, etc., etc. I'm not clear on this.Professor Ninja 18:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe the guardians ad litem were only appointed for the period of time in which Michael Schiavo's guardianship was in question and being litigated in the courts. Now that the courts have found in favor of Mr. Schiavo, he is once again considered the legal guardian. Of course I could be completely wrong --CVaneg 23:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, he has been offered 1 million and 10 million at various times to give up any claim on guardianship of her. I can't give a reference offhand. Pakaran 22:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay that needs to be included then. That the court has ruled that no one has the right to overturn her wishes --anon

For the sake of accuracy, he has, through his lawyer, alleged he has been offered $10M. He was publically offered $1M, however.Professor Ninja 03:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He has also made this 'allegation'.

Feeding tube

The article says her gastric feeding tube is not a nasogastric tube. Rather than learning what it is not, I would prefer to learn what it is, especially since gastric feeding tube doesn't list any other types. AxelBoldt 19:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what it is called, but it is this: It is a tube that is surgically implanted through her abdomen directly into her stomach. There is an interface sort of like a garden hose end that sits outside the stomach. At feeding time, a line is attached to that and liquid nourishment is pumped directly into her stomach through that. Apparently, when the feeding tube was "removed," they really removed it all the way from her abdomen - they didn't simply cap it. In order to resume feeding, they would have to surgically reimplant another similar interface. --AStanhope 19:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My best understanding from, I think, NPR backgrounders, is that this is the first time the tube has been *removed*; the previous two times it was only disconnected externally. That's an important distinction, if it's verifiable, but I'm playing merry hell trying. Anyone got a cite on that? --Baylink 04:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be good if a doctor could fill in the details in gastric feeding tube. This should be cleared up, since I've seen someone edit this article and mistakenly claim that Schiavo had an NG tube. Rhobite 23:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

You do not do your cause any good by vandalizing either the article or the talk page. Iceberg3k 20:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Funding of legal battle

Regarding this edit, which removed The Schindlers' legal fight has been and continues to be funded by a variety of sources on the political right ([1]) with the edit summary NPOV. The funding of the legal battle, if mentioned, should be mentioned for both parties. Unless I'm misunderstanding the text, isn't Mr. Schiavo's legal battle funded by the $1,050,000 from the malpractice suit? —Markaci 2005-03-23 T 23:32 Z

Perhaps it should be moved down to the accusations section to counterbalance the reference to the malpractice money going to Michael's lawyer.--CVaneg 23:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is; but my previous edit, adding that in to provide balance, was deleted; so I balanced it the other way, by removing the other one. All these questions about money should probably be moved together, yes. Bill 00:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look in the "controversy" section. It says "raising the issue of a possible conflict of interest is the fact that Mr. Schiavo stands to inherit the remainder of Mrs. Schiavo's malpractice settlement upon her death. Mr. Schiavo has publicly responded to this charge by claiming that, of the original $1,050,000 awarded in the malpractice suit, less than $50,000 is left, the rest having been spent under a judge's supervision on medical care for Mrs. Schiavo and the ongoing legal battle." (My emphasis). We do mention the funding of the legal battle for both parties. Neutrality^talk 01:41, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, almost none of the money has been spent on medical care. Since the money was awarded Michael hasn't permitted her to receive medical care or therapy, for the most part. They did give her antibiotics for an infection once (which Michael initially opposed), and they pulled several of her teeth (which had rotted due to dental neglect). That's about it. They've just warehoused her, first in a nursing home, then in the hospice. NCdave 16:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Care to provide a citation NCdave, thats clearly at odds with the 2003 GAL report. I'm concerned that you misunderstand the purpose of wikipedia... It's not intended to be your personal editorial. Perhaps you should start a blog? Gmaxwell 21:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You realise, NCdave, that hospices cost money, correct? That these hospices make income based on beds, and that is how they pay their nurses, and therefore somebody is paying for Schiavo's "warehousing". Professor Ninja 03:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo pronunciation

I've corrected the pronunciation of the name. It's skee-AH-voh, not SHY-voh. The name is of Italian origin and means "slave." —Cantus…☎ 02:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

But Michael SHY-voh doesn't pronounce it that way. Jeez. --Flyers13 (unsigned)

I changed it back. Michael says it and he's the one who knows how to pronounce it. Saopaulo1 02:20, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he can't pronounce his own name. I'll revert. —Cantus…☎ 02:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

He can pronounce it however he wants to. Saopaulo1 02:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted a compromise: "pronounced SHY-voh by her husband Michael; however the correct Italian pronunciation is skee-AH-voh" —Cantus…☎ 02:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, that's an imposition of your POV: he's American, not Italian and it's his own name, so however he pronounces it is automatically the correct pronunciation: if he prounounces it SHY-voh, then the correct pronunciation is SHY-voh; if he prounounces it skee-AH-voh, then the correct pronunciation is skee-AH-voh; and if he prounounces it slum-GULL-ee-un-TAL-ee-WAH-ker, then the correct pronunciation is slum-GULL-ee-un-TAL-ee-WAH-ker. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Snipped this from some fox news blog:
Dear Ms. Van Susteren, It pains me to listen to newscasters, you included, grossly mispronouncing repeatedly Terri Schiavo' s name. The Italian name Schiavo is pronounced "Skiavo" in the upper class and "Shiavo" on the street, NOT "Shaivo" as careless newscasters mispronounce. Please make the necessary corrections... Respectfully, Arik Samson
So now there's three pronounciations.. Just write pronounced (option1 or option2 or option3). If a large amount of people "mispronounces" a word that pronounciation should be recognised. As it is with nu-cu-lear. Preisler 02:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems as though the Italian pronunciation of Terri and Michael Schiavo's last name is one of the less relevant things we could include in this article. Brodo 03:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "correct" Italian pronunciation of her name is irrelevant to the article, and should be removed. If Michael pronounces it SHY-voh, that's the way it should be pronounced when referring to him. If other people with the same last name pronounce it skee-AH-voh, then that's the way it should be pronounced when referring to them. --Azkar 04:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite honestly, and isn't this obvious, the way that it's pronounced in standard Italian is UTTERLY and TOTALLY irrelevant to this article. What matters is how the family - an American family - pronounces it. Are there seriously people who would disagree with that?? Moncrief 04:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

The "common" pronounciation ... ? --Baylink 04:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious to anyone who has heard more surnames than just "Smith" and "Jones" that the same spellings render different pronunciations all over the world. The "correct" pronunciation is that used by her or her parents. There are other "correct" pronunciations, which other families may use. There is no correct pronunciation. -- BRIAN0918  04:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

However, I still think an IPA pronounciation should replace the ad-hoc one. For those of you who don't know, the reason for this is IPA pronounciations are reader neutral. The way a Brit is going to pronounce SHY-voh is different from the way an Indian will pronounce SHY-voh is different from the way it should be pronounced which is with the American pronounciation used by her husband. -- anon

The problem with putting in the IPA pronounciation is that most people reading this article aren't going to be familiar with IPA. If we're going to mention the pronounciation at all, we should at least do so in a way the majority of people are going to understand. --Azkar 15:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That could be said for any article. This argument is an old one for the anti-IPA brigade but it ignores the fact that if people don't know they can easily find out and if they don't want to find out, tough. IPA provides a reader neutral system of pronounciation that avoids reader-bias and it the preferred system on Wiki.

BTW, I should add one thing we should ask is altho I doubt we will find out is how did she pronounce the name? If she pronounced it differently then we need to include both pronounciations!--anon

I think it is reasonable to assume that she pronounced it the same way as her husband. It's his name, afterall. I don't see why she would have chosen to pronounce it differently, when she took it. --Azkar 15:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not absolutely necessarily. See Hyacinth Bucket. Bill 22:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh.. Bou-quet.. Thanks for that.. Made me chuckle.. Preisler 03:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why it's resonable to assume so. People often pronounce names differently. She would have pronounced the name however she pronounced it when referring to her husband before he was her husband and this may not have been exactly the same as the way he pronounces it...

Of course it's reasonable. Never met a family who, unless a speech impediment was involved, didn't pronounce their own name consistenly. Preisler 05:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article has been duplicated and doctor is called quack

Someone has duplicated the article and a doctor is called a quack. Altho he is undoutedtly a quack, it isn't necessary to say so. let the evidence speak for it self! -- anon

it's been fixed now and I removed the quack thing myself--anon