Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 4

message: I have replaced "euthanasia" with "right-to-die" in the headings.  My reasoning is that this is not a case of euthanasia - no life-support is going to be turned off.  Nobody will actually be actively causing Terri's death if the feeding tube is removed, rather, her death will be the passive result.  As such, I do not believe that it fits the dfinition of "euthanasia".
A dictionary definition to support this, taken from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=euthanasia
"The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment."
Again, I don't think that removing the feeding tube qualifies here, since that mere act will not end her life, whereas a lethal injection or the removal of life-support would.
Now, if anybody thinks that "right-to-die" is too loaded a term, it can be changed, I'm not particularly attached to it.  I just thought it fit, under the circumstances.
Thanks, by the way, to whoever it was who actually went around and added headings.  It was reading like quite a rambling monologue before, after being split up it's much easier on the eyes.  Cheers!
Lankiveil 12:20, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC).
:Of course it is euthanasia.  Disconnecting her feeding tube is not what will kill her, starvation and dehydration is what will kill her.  Michael Schiavo doesn't just want to disconnect her feeding tube, he wants to deprive her of nutrition and hydration from ANY source.  Physicians and speech therapists who have examined Terri for the courts and for her family have testified that she can swallow liquids normally (and, in fact, she swallows siliva routinely, as we all do).  They say she could probably be weaned from the feeding tube entirely with therapy, and that the feeding tube is primarily for the convenience of her caregivers.  So Michael Schiavo seeks, not just to have the feeding tube disconnected, but also to forbid anyone from spoon-feeding her.  In fact, last year when he managed to get her feeding tube removed for six days, he even forbade a priest from giving her communion by placing a tiny bit of sacramental waffer on her tongue.  "Right-to-die" is inaccurate (because she is not seeking to die), and "euthanasia" is, IMO, too clinical-sounding.  "Murder" is the right word. NCdave 14:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euthanasia vs Right-to-die 

message: This is missing from the article.
I came into the story late and I don't understand why Michael wants to remove the feeding tube. It is just "shes suffering and wants to die"? I'm totally confused. Someone please explain why he wants to remove it.
--Uncle Bungle 21:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from discussing the issue itself here. To do that use Usenet, public weblogs, forums or even your personal talkpages. Discuss the article on the subject here, and nothing else please. Preisler 23:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Preisler.  This is called the "Talk:" page.  Yes, there are better places to engage in ideological battle over a given topic, but if discussion arises on a Talk: page then it runs counter to the spirit of the mission here to stifle it.  --AStanhope 23:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed true on some of the more calm pages but do you really believe that this flaming wreck (to borrow Fox1's expression) of a talk page helps "the mission"? This page has so many problems that the discussions currently raging needs to go somewhere else if there is to be any hope of salvaging this page. I find it very sad that at a time when this subject is all over CNN, MSNBC and the like, and one therefore would expect a lot of people reading up on the subject, this is the best we can do. Preisler 00:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're absolutely right - this flaming wreck of a talk page isn't helping matters much.  I was, perhaps, a bit hasty.  --AStanhope 00:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what 'mission' you're referring to, but the primary, overriding concern of wikipedia is the creation of well written, NPOV articles. Preisler was fully within the boundaries on the Wikipedia policy on Talk Pages. While the enforcement of that policy varies from page to page (like all Wikipedia policies), this particular page currently has a problem with off-topic and debate flooding that borders on epidemic. Fox1 00:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you and I are talking about the same 'mission.'  --AStanhope 00:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why remove the tube? 

message: As if this article isn't already complicated enough, I think we ought to either include here a discussion about how the issue is playing out on a national, Congressional, and (ultimately) Constitutional level.  If the temperature runs too hot here, we should have a link to a separate entry on the political angle of Schiavo.  Again, I'm someone coming to this entry from the NPOV perspective, with a believe in Wikipedia's power to objectively describe history, including history as it evolves.  24.25.219.8 07:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion that this issue may be a little too current to give it this sort of treatment, especially at the moment when developments are appearing as rapidly as they are. I think this will be a fascinating addition to the article, or a separate entry, but I'm not sure now is the time to try and compile something like that. As it is, I think we're trying to hard to include all the bits of news information on an article that rather needs some TLC on its basic elements. Fox1 14:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am curious as to whether or not there is legal precedent for the Federal government to intervene in something so out of their legal jurisdiction like this case.  I can't even see how the usual "misinterpret the Tenth Amendment" strategy can even work in this issue. --69.234.183.71 09:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: legal and political implications of the Terri Schiavo case

message: There has been a lot of talk about how painful her death is supposedly going to be. This is not really backed up by doctors from what I can see and the article I linked to supports. So does anyone else think it might good to mention this where it mentioned her death? Something like although this may sound like a painful way to do, the experience of most doctors suggest otherwise. and then link to the article. Or does this sound too POV?
:Her death will not be painful. My girlfriends works in a old people's home where the feeding tube of terminally ill people is removed, like in Schiavo's case. They get medication to relieve the pain, and so the anguish isn't really an issue. Keimzelle/212.152.24.234 18:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "When I was paralyzed, I, too, had a feeding tube disconnected for eight days and I knew what that felt like. Her husband had been saying that being starved was a relatively painless way to go. I nearly shouted at the radio dial, 'That is not true. That is a lie. You ought to try it!' -- Kate Adamson, brainstem stroke survivor whose husband successfully fought to keep her alive when she was paralyzed  <>< tbc 06:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painful death 

message: Why in the beggining of the article does it state there is no evidence ofr abuse, but later in the article it states very bluntly that they have found strong evidence of abuse through bone scans.
:Pretty simple answer: we can't get agreement between editors on this point. This does need to be reconciled, though, one way or the other.
:Please remember to sign your comments on the Talk page, you can do so by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post.
:Fox1 23:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse