Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 50

message: The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue extraordinary measures to prolong her life.
The court used the term "life-prolonging" measures in the November 22,2002 order. See the paragraph above titled "Note 9" and the off-page link to that order. Characterizing food as "extraordinary" would leave only air and blankets as "ordinary". 
 Martin |  talk • contribs  07:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraordinary measures vs life-prolonging 

message: article: However, numerous studies have shown that for terminally ill patients who choose to die, deaths by dehydration are generally peaceful, "good" deaths, not associated with suffering, when supplemented with adequate pain medication.
I removed the phrase "good" death.
It suggests that Terri's death was "good" in some sense beyond the senses mentioned in the adjacent phrases. The studies cited were restricted to the context of patients
* with end stage terminal illness
* who choose to die, and
* have palliative pain medication used to the point of unconsciousness.
This context did not apply in Terri's case. -- Martin |  talk • contribs  23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good edit. Thanks Martin. MastCell 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Vague terminology like "good death" triggers too many unproductive arguements.--71.141.224.170 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  euthanasia (good death) 

message: current: It was speculated that her low potassium level had in turn been caused by an eating disorder
Bulemia is the eating disorder that is associated with electrolyte imbalance, because of vomiting or use of laxatives.
changed to: Electrolyte imbalance can be cause by [ [ bulemia | loss of fluids ] ].  -- Martin |  talk • contribs  06:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  low potassium 

message: What is it about this article that has so many Vandals on it?  I have this on my watch list and was going to try to add to it but it seems like people keep putting garbage in it. I like calm and nice with articles so I haven't posted until now.  --Crohnie 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandelism 

message: This probably has been addressed before, but I am of the opinion that it makes more sense to use the "post-accident" photo as the main one on the article. It's the more recognizable image of her, and more appropriate for the debate that is the focus of the article. I would further suggest that the image itself allows no definitive judgment as to her mental capacity.
:I can imagine the argument for the current order -- that it puts the focus on her as a person, is the choice more sensitive to her loved ones, etc. -- but I stand by my thoughts on the issue.--12.47.123.121 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be left alone.  Just because YOU remember her that way doesn't mean that to those to whom she was important remember her the same way.  This is an article about her, after all. --ChÿnaDragön 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo order

message: This article is a narrative of the Terri Schiavo case; it doesn't seem to address why the case was important,
except for a very brief Impact section, and that it was a notable case in medical ethics.  It's been two years;
perhaps we can figure out what the impact and importance of the case was, and re-write the article accordingly.
199.17.27.38 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Figuring out the impact and importance of the case would involve original research, which we cannot do.  On the other hand, we can report on what reliable sources have said about its impact and importance. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess the question I am asking is: why is this case notable?  There are lots of tragic court cases, any one of which could be written up as this one has.  Most such entries would be deleted for not being notable.  Why is the Schiavo case notable? (other than that it occurred recently and the memories are still raw).
199.17.27.38 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For more information on the notability requirements, click here.  As to whether the case should be notable, that's another question... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, that clears some things up.  Once notable, always notable?  There are probably lots of cases from 100 years ago that were notable then and are well-documented.  But would they be notable now?  In any case, since notability simply seems to be having been reported in a variety of sources, this case passes.  What I would like to see, however, is something in the first paragraph saying why this case is important.  (And I am the same person as 199.17.27.38; I just hadn't logged in.)  SmaleDuffin 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notability" is incredibly poorly named, especially as the concept has evolved.  The primary notability criterion basically means that there are enough sources to do a story on a subject. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability?

message: This article is a narrative of the Terri Schiavo case; it doesn't seem to address why the case was important,
except for a very brief Impact section, and that it was a notable case in medical ethics.  It's been two years;
perhaps we can figure out what the impact and importance of the case was, and re-write the article accordingly.
199.17.27.38 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Figuring out the impact and importance of the case would involve original research, which we cannot do.  On the other hand, we can report on what reliable sources have said about its impact and importance. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess the question I am asking is: why is this case notable?  There are lots of tragic court cases, any one of which could be written up as this one has.  Most such entries would be deleted for not being notable.  Why is the Schiavo case notable? (other than that it occurred recently and the memories are still raw).
199.17.27.38 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For more information on the notability requirements, click here.  As to whether the case should be notable, that's another question... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, that clears some things up.  Once notable, always notable?  There are probably lots of cases from 100 years ago that were notable then and are well-documented.  But would they be notable now?  In any case, since notability simply seems to be having been reported in a variety of sources, this case passes.  What I would like to see, however, is something in the first paragraph saying why this case is important.  (And I am the same person as 199.17.27.38; I just hadn't logged in.)  SmaleDuffin 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notability" is incredibly poorly named, especially as the concept has evolved.  The primary notability criterion basically means that there are enough sources to do a story on a subject. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For the same reason as in the response to your next question below. --ChÿnaDragön 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability?

message: How notable is the paragraph on her funeral, and the picture of her tombstone? I personally find it irrelevant how she was laid to rest after her feeding tube was removed - the great debate was on whether or not to remove the tube, not on how to bury her. --Safe-Keeper 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reason as in the response to your next question below. --ChÿnaDragön 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Funeral

message: I believe 'Early life' should be changed to something like 'early medical history', to better reflect that it is relevant to the article and not just a tabloid-style section about the person's interests,  etc., but actually about her medical record. --Safe-Keeper 02:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the article is "Terri Schiavo", not "The controversy surrounding Terri Schiavo's death" or "Terri Schiavo's medical condition", hence it would suffice to say that anything regarding the life, and in this case her early life or circumstances regarding her collapse, is relevant to the article.  If someone wanted to list her high school accomplishments or hobbies she was passionate about, then the argument could easily be made that it would be relevant to an article entitled "Terri Schiavo". I would agree, however, that for a section entitled "Early Life", there should be more said about her actual early life than just her medical issues.  Otherwise, in this case, perhaps the section title should be changed.  But you'd be hard-pressed to show that someone's early life would be irrelevant in an article that is about them.  --ChÿnaDragön 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Early life' 

message: Why is there so much talk about her weight? I hardly think it's relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.158.89.158 (talk • contribs).
:Hi, please post at the bottom of the page. You can use the + button at the very top between "edit this page" and "history" if you want to start a new topic. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end. That way, everyone can keep track of who said what, and when. Regarding her weight, I suppose it's because it was claimed that she had bulimia, and that the bulimia had caused her collapse, and the compensation money was because it hadn't been diagnosed. But I don't claim any particular expertise on the subject. ElinorD (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight

message: I've flagged the article, and the section "Petition to remove feeding tube" as requiring cleanup, because it is somewhat redundant with the previous section.  The flow of the article is clearly interrupted when you go from the year 2000 in one paragraph that gives the final outcome of the legal proceedings, then jump back to 1998 in the next paragraph to deal with the first petition (especially when these sections are talking about the same things, even if the content is somewhat different).  Either these sections need to be merged somehow, or a whole new section entitled "Legal Proceedings" or something should be started with subsections to individual legal battles.  If the idea was to try and created a summary paragraph before going into details on the legal issues, it really doesn't work as far as the flow of the article.  In any case, it requires clean-up. --ChÿnaDragön 16:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections "Five years of family conflict" and "Petition to remove feeding tube"