Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Mediation/Archive 1

message: OK, I've read through the entire talk page here, and gotten quite a headache! (lol - due mainly to length, not content) --However, I have some helpful feedback, and I shall #1 - identify problem; and, #2 - propose solution, OK?--GordonWattsDotCom 10:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Urrrk ... I wouldn't use the abortion page as an example of how to do anything, except perhaps for the lame edit wars page.
EXAMPLES to support my solution #1:
* From the Slavery#Apologies page we clearly see that there is another POV than the one that the courts were right to declare slavery to be legally right. (Remember: This was reviewed by all the courts -all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision; by Duck's standard, we must declare the court's decision as fact, but we know that is wrong, hence Duck's method is fallible. Furthermore, the Slavery#Reparations section not only shows WHAT the opposing POV is -but WHY they believe that way "...slaves are exactly those people who have no access to the legal process." (Note: The article does not take a point of view or support which side is right; it lets the reader decide.)
* I'll let you read the other 2 examples -as homework; Applying it to the Terri Schiavo article, we must include the POV held by many (NCdave, for example) that the judge violates the law, namely §825.102(3), Florida LAW, which makes it a FELONY, hello!? to deny food or basic medical treatment (not to be confused with feeding tubes) regarding handicapped and elderly. Note: There is no exception for the "wishes" or the patient, the "wishes" of the judge, or whether or not the person was "PVS" or "terminally ill." However, is this POV present in the article? I am not sure, but I don't think it is, therefore the article's POV might be justified to have been "disputed" when NCdave put up said "NPOV" tag in the past. To be sure, I have identified at least six (6) ways the both Greer and the appeals judges most probably violated the law: , namely:
**1:Denial of oral food and water & medical treatment violates state & FEDERAL law;
**2:Denial of therapy/rehab/examination violates state & federal law too;
**3:Terri was labeled PVS when she did not fit the legal definition (state law);
**4:She was put in hospice care when said placement was violating state & federal law;
**5:Whether or not her wishes were to die, either euthanasia or assisted suicide (depending on her wishes) state law was violated; and,
**6:She was deprived of a trial by jury, a state & federal constitutional guarantee (and protected by state laws and other provisions) in the litigation of the most recent cases. Not covered but also true was this:
**7:the violation of the principle of [res judicata], which means that mike Schiavo should have litigated her wishes back then -but missed his legal chance: "Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action." (Emphasis added for clarity.) So, since listing other points of view is WIKI policy (see Jimbo Wales' comments below) --and this is in line with how other controversial articles handle it, it is safe to say that there are "other points of view" that need to be listed to avoid NPOV problems.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gordon's solutions 

message: Here are some links that you may find helpful:
User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida]] 05:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here are some links that you may find helpful 

message: :I don't know if this comment belongs here—feel free to move it more appropriately if necessary. There's a fundamental problem in this section, an order of magnitude worse than any of the others. A deal killer, if you will. Everyone has a side on this story. Take all of the politics away, take all the blogosphere conspiracy away, take all the I-believe-Michael-was-doing-the-right-thing away, and you're left with one huge elephant in the room: Judge Greer. Everything revolves around him. He's the tryer of fact and it's his decisions and his rulings that drive every aspect of the case. I can tell you now, I'm confident that there is no gray on this subject (even I, try as I might, would have a very difficult time agreeing on a position significantly deviated from my own—ordinarily I wouldn't try to speak for NCdave, but I have $1K that says his feeling is the same). Duckecho 18:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Such reviews are common in criminal cases and should have been applied here" Patsw, please advocate somewhere else. FuelWagon 14:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my advocacy. I am explaining why in public opinion, shared by both houses of Congress and the President of the United States, there is a controversy which extends beyond George Greer personally to the system which infused Greer's legal opinions with finality different from similar cases in criminal law where there is a judicial order imposing death.  patsw 15:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my advocacy. However, you're just regurgitating the mantra of some members of the legislative and executive branches of the government who wish to engage in a turf war with the judicial branch in order to exercise control over them. It's precisely the same issue that got Terri's Law overturned. It was ruled an unconstitutional encroachment by both the legislative and executive brance (state level, in this case) into the judicial branch. In truth, there was not a lot of popular support for that intrusion in any case. When courts make decisions that some politicians don't like, all of a sudden they're labeled rogue judges, judicial activists, and loose cannons. Duckecho 16:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An echo of your mind

message: Well, you've certainly all established that you can post yoru comments faster than I can read, digest and summarize them. I'm still behind on getting the major points, but the objectivity of the courts seems to be a sticking point - so at least I've figuered that out.
I also read the article, finally, word for word. And, well, it really should be a candidate for "brilliant prose" or *cough* Featured Article as we call it these days.
Can we get into what is specifially wrong with the article? I really don't want to have to read the talk page, it's like 290 KB of swampland. I'm way behind on my Bible reading, and talk:TS rivals the size of the New Testament! 
No, I won't be imposing my Bible views on anyone - not this time, in case anyone remembers my little faux pas from a coupla years ago. Hey, nobody's perfect. Let's do this thing together. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I think that the problem isn't really with the court decisions. The article, for the most part, reports those as court decisions, not simple facts. Same goes for medical opinions. That was the reason I reverted your edit that said "Terri was pvs" and changed it back to "Terri was diagnosed pvs". subtle but important difference. Anyway, the problem I see isn't the courts or the doctors, its the conspiracy theorists, and their wholly unsubstantiated claims. NCdave has a laundry list of accusations from the blogsforterri sites and he keeps regurgitating them on the talk page. For the most part, the accusations are completely unfounded (no evidence to back it up). Some accusations actually contradict empirical data, doctor diagnosis, court rulings, etc. The entry NCdave put on this page contains some of his favorite accusations. I replied to several and put them in context of the rest of the data. The dozens of doctors who "diagnosed" Terri by watching 4.5 minutes of video edited from 4.5 hours by the Schindlers is one of his pet claims. It is mentioned in the article in full context, but NCdave keeps bringing it up on the talk page. Carla Iyer filed an affidavit that said Michael often shouted "when is that bitch gonna die" and other similar statements while she was a nurse caring for Terri. This is also covered in teh article. Judge Greer threw out the affidavit as "incredible to say the least". It is covered in its own section in the article (2003 petition, I think), but NCdave likes to keep harping on it as fact on the talk page. So, what I'd like to see are the topics that are generally michael-murdered-terri-conspiracy-theory-claims ruled to be sufficiently and properly covered so that they can be put to bed. the topics that I responded to from NCdave's post would be a good start. If we can get some sort of decision that says they're covered properly and neutrally and whatever, then I think we'd be making serious progress. FuelWagon 02:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First Day Round-up

message: The statements the Schindlers made in published public media appearances and in petitions to the court are part of the story and not per se POV.  Their statements from primary and secondary sources which are relevant and accurate to the topic of Terri Schiavo are in fact necessary for the article to fairly present their side of the controversy. patsw 17:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pat