Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 23

message: ::Malpractice suit.  "The court placed Terri Schiavo's award in a trust fund, which was controlled by a third party and covered her medical and legal expenses."  First of all, am I wrong in thinking the "third party" was her husband?  Secondly since the money ran out as a result of legal expenses, I don't think it "covered her medical and legal expenses".  Wasn't her care being paid for by the taxpayer at the end?  I suggest something like "a trust fund to cover her medical and legal expenses;  it was controlled by . . . "  Also was the money intended by the courts to cover her legal expenses?  The malpractice jury surely did not expect the money to be used for that purpose?
:::No, the third party wasn't Michael. Just reinforcing what JYolkowski said. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
:::It wasn't controlled by her husband, it was a "third party" (not sure who offhand).  JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SouthTrust Bank, aka third party.  From the wolfson report:  "The court established a trust fund for Theresa’s financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa’s estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained."  Also, if there were restrictions on the trust to simply medical expenses, then it wouldn't have covered the legal expenses, and it clearly did.  (The trustee will go to the court to approve expenses or to file its reports; if it were not the intent of the court to cover the expenses, it wouldn't have allowed the expense/payment.)  Anyway, the trust was a finite amount and can cover medical/legal/administrative/whatever expenses until the money runs out.  (and people want to impose caps on damage awards *sigh*).  Also, above there's an assumption that the trust fund is automatic from the jury award, but I would say that it comes from the settlement agreement (thus, jury's intent not relevant).  All this impossible to know for certain without trust deed.  In the end, the paragraph is accurate to the extent possible without the medmal docs (but then, I wrote it.  Addiitonally, I originally had $750k award, but someone else said it was $700k.  Frankly, $50k isn't worth disputing.  I don't play a lawyer on tv, but I am one in real life.)--Mia-Cle 13:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I accept the "third party" bit.  Not sure that I'm happy with "covered her medical and legal expenses". Ann Heneghan 01:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you prefer "paid for"?  ([T]he trust fund, which...paid for her medical and legal expenses.)--Mia-Cle 01:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: trust fund controlled by third party

message: For the sake of accuracy, Barbara Weller can be identified as the Schindler attorney who heard Terri speak on March 18 2005.patsw 16:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues of Dispute

message: I would be a lot happier about the image of the CAT scans if they were from the hearing in February 2000. http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf, paragraph one page one states that CAT scans of Terri Shaivo's brain and, for comparison, Dr. James Barnhill's brain were submitted into evidence.  The problem I have with the current images is that they are obviously from different sections of the brain. e.g. the "normal" scan is not from the same area of the head as Terri's scan. That or Ms. Shaivo has one very thick skull. 
Does anyone have access to the court records from this order on February 11, 2000? Does the State of Forida provide an on-line resource for these scans? Wjbean 13:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaivo's Condition

message: Over at my talk page Tropix asked:
:Maybe you know where to find the 2nd DCA October 2002 order discussed by Matt Conigliaro that we have been talking about. I looked at his site and the 2nd DCA website at  and can't find it. Maybe it is a different date? If you have a clue, I would appreciate it, because I would really like to read it. Also it would appear to deserve a link, wherever it gets referenced.
I haven't been able to find it on 2dca.org, but it is referenced on Matt Conigliaro's Abstract Appeal site. Does anybody know where to find this October 2002 decision? I've been unable to find it, but I've been busy, so unable to look very hard. Professor Ninja 18:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
::the UM (go 'canes!) website is fairly complete.  go here  -- there are 2d DCA rulings for January 2001, April 2001, July 2001, and October 2001.  There are also mentions of 2002 activity, but no links (I think, i looked it over quickly).  Hope this helps.  --Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 20:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody give a hand to Tropix? 

message: quoting the AAN website here 
:The American Academy of Neurology was invited to present testimony before ... the United States Senate in a hearing, which was held April 6th (2005) in Washington, DC. The AAN was represented by James L. Bernat, MD, a member of the AAN Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee (Past Chair) and a recognized expert in brain damage including PVS. ... Dr. Bernat’s testimony was approved by the AAN Executive Committee. 
quoting from this Bernat's testimony 
:The prognosis for recovery of awareness in PVS has been quantified. In general, the prognosis depends on the cause and duration of PVS. It is worse after cardiac arrest and after a long duration of PVS. Patients remaining in PVS for greater than 3 months after cardiac arrest have only a slight chance of recovery of awareness. Recovery of awareness is unprecedented after 2 years. With head injury causing PVS, the times necessary to show these levels of prognostic certainty are 1 year and 5 years respectively.
Maybe someone could read the whole thing and put this in the main article where appropriate. I'd do it but will probably end up inserting "wtf?" or some such obscenity, and that won't work. FuelWagon 04:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernat Senate Testimony 

message: Aloha, could you discuss your changes here, at the bottom of the page? Thanks. --Viriditas  | Talk 00:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My interpretation of the discussion above was that there was a general consensus that they could be deleted (note also that they were uncited).  Do you feel differently?  JYolkowski // talk 00:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They were not uncited.  The text you removed is cited by the article, "Eating disorder is 'lost lesson' in Schiavo case" in the Miami Herald and refers to testimony in the malpractice case: During the malpractice case, at least one of Schiavo's friends testified they knew she was bulimic because after meals out, she always immediately excused herself to go to the bathroom. Her husband also knew she had peculiar eating patterns but did not realize they were dangerous...  This is attributed to Gary Fox, a lawyer who represented Terri and Michael Schiavo in the malpractice case. --Viriditas  | Talk 00:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't cited in the article.  Please add the citation to the article (like I said above).  You also reverted "to better care for his wife"; do you have a cite for that?  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was cited in the article, but in the next paragraph.  It's also a part of public record, and is most likely referred to in the source documents at the bottom of the page. The same goes with the "better care for his wife" which was cited in an obituary in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution but the link appears to be down.  I am working on tracking it down, as I believe it is also based on a primary source, perhaps a GAL report. --Viriditas  | Talk 00:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add a citation for that, go ahead.  No-one had either come up with one or otherwise mentioned that they wanted to keep those bits for a week, so being bold and removing them is sometimes the best way of getting things done.  JYolkowski // talk 00:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I also think that the use of footnotes will solve some of these problems as these links become subscription-based or disappear completely like the AJC obit, which has totally vanished.  But, I'm fairly sure they were all based on primary source documents, so I'll track those down as well. --Viriditas  | Talk 00:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by JYolkowski 

message: Just in case someone drew a conclusion (and shame on you if you did) that there was anything more than coincidence between the vandalism by UDoN't!wAn* yesterday and my departure the day before, you may rest assured it was not me. I wouldn't even think of such a thing, much less carry it out. LRod 216.76.216.90 12:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone thinks you are connected to  UDoN't!wAn*, but is there a reason you are unable to create an account? --Viriditas  | Talk 00:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal Attacks 

message: appears to be introducing unsupported, uncited, disreputable source claims into the article, so I have reverted.  These include:
*Michael 'remembered', years after his wife fell ill and he began living with another woman, that his wife would not have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state and that he was fighting for her right to die by using nearly all of Terri's portion of the settlement on legal battles, rather than on trying to make her well.
*Michael said he chose not to divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to carry out her final wishes not to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state, and he would lose all access to Terri's medical malpractice settlement, the majority of which was spent on Michael's legal costs to terminate Terri's life.
*However, this poll did not mention that "removing life support" meant removing food and water, or that her husband was living with another woman.
--Viriditas  | Talk 00:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed. Thanks for taking out the trash. FuelWagon 01:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 138.130.201.227 

message: I feel the section concerning the possible mexican standoff needs to be clarified.  If I'm not mistaken, President Bush could have dispatched Federal agents to take her into custody on the basis of the congressional subpoeana (ref: Clinton/Reno in the Elian Gonzalez case).  The way it's written now makes it look like the Federal Government is bound a state judge's court order - which is clearly false.  In the words of Bill O'Reilly . . . What say you?
:Unfortunately, I say the Government Involvement section has become very POV.  Carefully framed and politically correct, but POV in tone, spirit, and conclusions.  By comparison, the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case is much more balanced.  Perhaps, we should bring it back into the main body.  I hesistate because it was broken out for some legitimate reasons, and does not contain some of the info that's been inserted into the main article since.  However, the main article now leaves out large swaths of info that will be relevent to U.S. politics in the years to come.  We need to get this right.--ghost 17:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The government section was trimmed down and moved to its own article to keep the main article from exploding. I just read teh current government section and do not see where there is POV. It may be short, but it does not seem POV to me. FuelWagon 18:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After reviewing the section this evening, I retract my eariler position.  I made the mistake of confusing eariler edits. *DOH* --ghost 03:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the "mexican standoff" comment is uncalled for and I'd rather see it written in a more factual tone. Unless one of the main players in the actual event (Greer, Bush1 or Bush2) used the term "Mexican standoff" then I don't think the term deserves to be in the article. FuelWagon 18:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--ghost 03:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government Involvement 

message: NCDave has previously posted from IP address 69.134.182.251
That IP address just attempted to put the NPOV tag back in
and modify the article to state that Terri was NOT PVS.
diff
contributions from IP address 69.134.182.251
FuelWagon 16:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NCDave is back

message: I rewrote the intro. 
Part of it was to put the intro into chronological order. The previous version sort of jumped around, mentioned her death, and then backed up and mentioned the battle between her husband and her parents.
Part of it was to satisfy the flat-earthers who would rather spend the rest of their life vandalizing a webpage than to face medical fact that Terri was PVS. (Flat-earth morons like NCdave have even stooped to doing anonymous vandalism recently.) 
I don't say "Terri was PVS", even though I think only a dogmatic conspiracy-freak would think otherwise. I do however attempt to describe the diagnosises (plural spelling?) and the debate and all teh hoopla around the case in AS SHORT AS FRIGGEN POSSIBLE, while still keeping everything in context. And then I refer folks to sections further down for more information.
If folks don't like it, they can revert it. It's all in one block of edits.
FuelWagon 20:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No complaints here.  Good job.--ghost 21:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of Intro