# Talk:Terri Schiavo case

A custom index of the archives for the Terri Schiavo page has been created at Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives with a general description of each archive's contents.

Other neurologists—Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison—also examined Terri over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared an opinion about her very poor chances for recovery. Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and expert on coma and unconsciousness, testified in 2005 that nothing in the medical records suggested disagreement among Terri’s physicians about the underlying diagnosis.

I am working on a rewrite of the lead section of this article from scratch. I am working on it at User:Pages777/Terri Schiavo case lead. Please collaborate with me at that page for about a week (until July 30, 2021) and then we will engage in consensus building and hopefully replace the current lead. I think that the main advantage of my version is that the three paragraphs have a coherent train of thought.--Pages777 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you believe someone who thinks an eating disorder makes you a "stupid, destructive and evil person" who deserves to experience severe health consequences of that illness is a prime candidate for rewriting this article? Vaticidalprophet 23:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
You would benefit from taking the existing advice from 7-8 July in the article history where multiple users already highlighted the WP:POV and MOS:EDITORIAL language in your preferred lead, like "as is typical", "endured wave after wave", "memorialized his fidelity", etc. I fail to see how your proposed revisions improve the current lead, notwithstanding the unconvincing assertion of a "right to lifer" bias. --Scuoise (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23, why did you revert the edit? This is how I know it in English grammar. "Low" in the original sentence acts as a noun. Therefore, it cannot have an adverb modifying it. Adverbs only modify verbs, adjectives and other adverbs as far as I know. It also would make "an" obsolete as what follows it isn't a noun or noun phrase. My revision changes "low" to an adjective and therefore, having "abnormally" before it makes it grammatically correct and does not at all affect the original message. Why then would you revert it? — Python Drink (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"low" was not a noun, it was an adjective, and your change messes up the flow. Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Elizium23, now I feel stupid; you're actually right. My brain just didn't notice the figures. — Python Drink (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

On March 20, 2005, the Senate, by unanimous consent, passed their version of a relief bill
what is a relief bill? Marnanel (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In the article it says 

>  a large majority of Americans believed that Michael Schiavo should have had the authority to make decisions on behalf of his wife and that the U.S. Congress overstepped its bounds with its intervention in the case.
But the linked article only supports the second point. I can’t find evidence that a majority supported giving Michael Schiavo authority, only that they thought political meddling inappropriate 70.95.34.174 (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

They thought meddling was inappropriate because he was her husband and legal guardian. So, same thing.The article clearly states, or should, that the political meddling began with a paperwork blunder. There was HUGE support for Michael in the media, which I remember, but can't prove. 2600:387:15:3215:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)