Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 26

message: Thanks, FuelWagon. I thought the email quote was suspect, myself. Moreover, although the editor's contribution stated the email was from Schindler to the governor, the article cited makes clear that the email was forwarded to the governor through a third party. It may not have been addressed to the governor in the first place. Although this might be nit-picky, the edit is plainly not an accurate portrayal of the event. And further, who's to say the email actually said that and that Schindler was the author? Are there sources for the claim? Duckecho 00:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  email quote 

message: All threads that haven't been touched for a week, plus one really big one that was more recent (last touched 2 days ago) but was going in circles - if anyone really does feel a burning yearning to revive it, please don't post it all back on here, because the talk page was over 300k again. Proto 12:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Proto, thank you very big for doing an otherwise thankless job. FuelWagon 19:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: I created a subpage to make a sandbox.  Terri Schiavo/sandbox.  I took the liberty of doing my own restructure of the article to better follow the timeline, as others had suggested.  There were a few redundancies that could then be removed.  The ToC makes a LOT more sense in this version.  Thoughts?--ghost 21:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox created

message: Just a heads-up, but a couple of commentators on Kevin Drum's "Political Animal" blog have singled out this article for praise: original blog post and comments 1 and 2. Good work! --Calton | Talk 08:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Folks this is a feather in the cap of all here.  You all deserve praise.  (And I do mean all of you.)--ghost 19:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That's pretty cool having our work acknowledged by someone. FuelWagon 19:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yep, cool. Must be we got it right. Duckecho 22:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Animal

message: I suggest we discuss here before someone enters text into the article. patsw 15:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... no need to get into another edit war. --Lord Voldemort 15:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: What's the big deal? The only reason there would be an edit war is if someone insists on holding onto their conspiracy theories in the face of autopsy evidence. FuelWagon 15:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've heard stuff from the press conference that sounds like Thogmartin was asked to speculate and he speculated.  What should be entered into the article should not include his speculation but his findings.   In terms of what was a surprise from the autopsy report, "she did not appear to have suffered a heart attack" is an example.  patsw 15:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been able to read the PDF (although I've downloaded two versions of it; must be a local problem). I'd be interested in what the context of the "she did not appear to have suffered a heart attack" quote is. Lay people often interchange heart attack and cardiac arrest. They are not synonymous. If you're surprised at the quote because you're thinking of the initial medical crisis which included cardiac arrest, don't be, because the lack of heart attack doesn't rule out cardiac arrest. A heart attack (myocardial infarct) frequently leaves markers discernible at autopsy (and certainly in an EKG while the subject is alive). Evidence of a previous cardiac arrest may not. Duckecho 19:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: This Terri advocacy site has the pdf of the autopsy. patsw 15:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Some of the autopsy press accounts (including the one that was added to the article) are sloppily written.  The report has conclusions about 1990, the period from 1990 through 2005, the time of her death, and speculation about her future medical condition in the event that she had not died from dehydration in March 2005.  I see some accounts blended all these time frames together.  patsw 16:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "the article should not include his speculation". The doctor who actually performed the autopsy, who actually examined the body, shouldn't speculate? That's convenient. I think there is a fundamental difference between some knucklehead watching TV and speculating what was wrong with Terri and the doctor who performed the autopsy speculating beyond the specifics of the autopsy. This is just attempting to keep the conspiracy theories alive. FuelWagon 18:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making the distinction that you would make - what's actually in the report as opposed  to a oral speculative comment made at the press conference in response to a reporter's question without a context for what time frame the answer relates  to.  My motivation is accuracy not "keeping conspiracy theories alive".  patsw 20:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Autopsy results announced

message: from page 34 of 39 of the autopsy report: FuelWagon 22:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could Mrs. Schiavo eat by mouth? The neuropathologic findings, oropharyngeal anatomic findings, and medical records clearly indicate that Mrs. Schiavo would not have been able to consume sustenance safely and/or in sufficient quantity by mouth. In fact, the records and findings are such that oral feedings in quantities sufficient to sustain life would have certainly resulted in aspiration. Swallowing evaluations and speech pathology evaluations repeatedly record that Mrs. Schiavo was a high risk for aspiration and not a candidate for oral nutrition/hydration. Although in her early rehabilitation, she received speech pathology services, she was later repeatedly evaluated and determined not to be a candidate for speechldysphagia therapy. According to medical records, she had been treated in the past for aspiration pneumonia. Thus, Mrs. Schiavo was dependent on nutrition and hydration via her feeding tube. Claims from caregivers of past oral feedings are remarkable, and, based on the autopsy findings and medical records, these feedings were potentially harmful or, at least, extremely dangerous to Mrs. Schiavo's health and welfare. Mrs. Schiavo's postmortem lung examination had findings that could be considered consistent with aspiration of secretions; however, her decline and dehydration over almost 2 weeks could also have played a role in these findings.
Thogmartin might be right that she could not have been adequately fed and hydrated by mouth.  But he was almost certainly wrong in his belief that the Jell-O snacks she was surreptitiously given by caregivers were harmful.  At least one of those caregivers testified that she gave Terri those snacks because Terri obviously enjoyed them, and that certainly would not have been the case if Terri had choked on them.  Nor is there any indication that Terri ever reacted badly to receiving Holy Communion.
The Jell-O snacks were given to Terri quite a few years ago.  Perhaps Terri's condition worsened over the years (certainly her physical condition did).  As far as we know, after Michael put her in Felos's hospice, five years ago, there were no more surreptitious oral snacks.  But she did manage to swallow small bits of Holy Communion wafer without difficulty, even in the hospice.
When was Terri supposed to have been treated for aspiration pneumonia?  Surely not recently!  This is the first I've heard of that.  Michael infamously denied her treatment for UTIs since more than a decade ago, and it is my understanding that he has not allowed her to receive antibiotics for anything for more than a decade.  Everything I've read has said that she swallowed her own saliva without difficulty, several pints per day.  So, when was this aspiration pneumonia supposed to have occurred, anyhow, and how was it supposedly "treated?"  Does anyone know?  NCdave 07:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Autopsy and oral feeding

message: I thought we had pretty well resolved that identifying bulimia as a cause of the hypokalemia was undocumentable. I know we had, because I took the lead in changing the article to reflect that (by taking it out). The autopsy report further proves that bulimia as a cause isn't supportable. That's not to say it wasn't the cause, but the only evidence to support it, says the ME, is the serum potassium levels on admission to Humana, and they could very well have been depressed due to other causes, particularly in Terri's resuscitation and treatment. User:Neutrality has put it back in. I'm going to wait a bit for others' thoughts on it, and if no one strongly disagrees with me, I'm taking it back out. Duckecho 00:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Appropriately qualifying it would make more sense since it's the best theory going and big bucks were paid on evidence that it was the case. And if bulimia normally wouldn't have left evidence, a lack of evidence can't now be counted against a conclusion reached earlier by experts in front of judge and jury. 4.250.168.126 07:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Big bucks were paid on evidence that it was the case. Can you cite a source that confirms this? I couldn't. The only material extant from the malpractice trial that I could find is a brief snippet purporting to be from Michael's testimony that supports his reason for studying nursing (and it's a suspicious source). There is nothing available that indicates bulimia was found as fact at that trial. This is exactly why we editors agreed to leave it out in the first place. Duckecho 13:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: For the sake of accuracy, "long thought to have been induced by bulimia" should be "incorrectly thought to have been induced by bulimia", (if this appears in the introduction at all).  patsw 12:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't be accurate, either.  The best one can do is explain that the cause of the collapse is unknown due to lack of evidence, but there are some good guesses, such as bulimia, etc. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: (in response to Patsw) I don't think that's any better. Thogmartin didn't rule it out—I believe he said the evidence to support it isn't conclusive. Duckecho 13:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: "You end up with a 26-year-old that used to be heavy, that now lost the weight, is reveling in her thinness now, enjoying her life, and doesn't want to gain the weight back," Dr. Thogmartin said. "And if that's a bulimic, there's a lot of bulimics out there. It's just not enough." patsw 13:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You're going to have to learn the difference between myocardial infarct (heart attack) and cardiac arrest. This is now the third time I have pointed this out to you. It was cardiac arrest that caused the loss of oxygen to the brain. She did not have a heart attack. I don't recall anyone ever claiming she had a heart attack. Please drop the heart attack angle. Take some time to learn the difference. Overall, the cause of her loss of oxygen to the brain is undetermined. That isn't correct. It's been known from the beginning that she was in cardiac arrest and that was what caused the lack of oxygen. It's even known what caused the cardiac arrest—hypokalemia. What isn't known is how she came to be hypokalemic. That's where the speculation about bulimia comes in. But myocardial infarction is ruled out. That's true. I don't know of anyone claiming she had a heart attack, except you. Why is that? Duckecho 13:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulimia (again) 

message: Can the person who added the scare quotes explain why they are there? It looks like editorializing on the coroner’s verdict.  patsw 12:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're now gone. Duckecho 13:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scare quotes around "undetermined" 

message: I'm wondering what the relevance is of the comparison of Terri's brain weight with Karen Ann Quinlan's.  I don't claim any medical expertise, but wouldn't the brain of someone who had gone for nearly two weeks without any food or water lose a lot of weight regardless of what it weighed the day the tube was removed?  Karen Ann Quinlan died of pneumonia, not of starvation and dehydration.  I wonder why the autopsy report didn't compare weight with for example Nancy Cruzan.  I appreciate that it was part of the published report, but since it seems to be an unfair and irrelevant comparison, I don't really think it should figure in the article, unless the following sentence clarifies that Karen Ann Quinlan had not had food and water cut off for thirteen days.  Ann Heneghan 17:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not a medico, either, but I'm pretty sure that when a highly regarded pathologist puts it in the report it has relevance. Moreover, while a case might be made for some small reduction in weight due to dehydration, the effect of dehydration has more to do with electrolyte imbalance that ultimately leads to final cardiac arrest than with loss of any significant body mass. A death by starvation would have been more likely to result in loss of body mass (possibly some brain), but the report is clear that she didn't die of that—that there was evidence of fatty tissue contraindicating malnourishment. More to the point, arguing about the different manners of death masks the true significance of the brain weight. It was less than half normal. The vast majority of that loss did not occur in the last thirteen days of her life. That's verified by earlier CT scans (and also rebuts speculation by Patsw that maybe she had a lot of vision right up to the end). In any event, one certainly cannot try to attribute more than a few grams (if one can at all) of the 220 grams difference between Quinlan and Schiavo to the different mechanisms of death. Even more to the point, the issue of the brain isn't even about that difference. It's about severe atrophy. It was significantly more severe than Quinlan who everyone acknowledges was in a PVS. It's about not only the size in comparison to a normal adult of that age (even accounting for 13 days of no nourishment or hydration), but the state of the remainder; think neurons. Finally, I'm going to ask you what I'm asking everyone who raises these questions—have you read the autopsy report? Duckecho 18:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I made it clear that this was just a query.  I don't claim any expertise, but just feel, based on common sense, that one would lose a lot of weight in all parts of the body if one did not eat or drink for thirteen days.  Yes, I know she died of dehydration, not starvation, but in she did undergo both, and both would have caused a weight loss.  I would have felt more comfortable if the report had either made a comparison with the brain of Nancy Cruzan, or had specifically stated that the thirteen days of starvation and dehydration would have had little effect on the weight of the brain.  I don't think Patsw said or implied that she had "a lot of vision".  All that he seems to have said about her vision on this page is, "we don't know the rate of the degeneration of Terri's ability to see . . . . it cannot be concluded anyone who reported Terri's ability to track motion with her eyes is 'a liar'."  And yes, I have read the report.  Of course.  Ann Heneghan 20:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: "it seems to be an unfair and irrelevant comparison" Why? Because the doctor performing the autopsy made the comparison? Perhaps we should go fishing for a doctor who DIDN"T examine the body and keep fishing until we find one that compares brain weights with the one YOU want. FuelWagon 18:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FuelWagon, I am quite sure that the wording of my post was clear, and that unless someone was actually trying to be confrontational, he would understand that my reason for feeling that it might be an unfair and irrelevant comparison was not because the comparison was made by the doctor who performed the autopsy, but because Karen Ann Quinlan did not suffer the weight loss that would be expected from thirteen days of starvation and dehydration.   Ann Heneghan 20:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've spent some time since I first saw Ann's comment to find out how 13 days of dehydration affects the mass of the brain rather than arguing here, or if Terri's pre-dehydration weight is recorded so that can be compared to her post-dehydration weight. patsw 18:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can narrow it down with some deductive reasoning. We know Terri was around 120 pounds in 1989. Given that she was still drinking lots of iced tea around the time of her collapse, it's fair to assume she was still fighting the weight and it also seems fair to assume that she was around 120 then, too. For the next 15 years it's also reasonable to postulate that her nutrition was adjusted to maintain an approximately stable weight. It's hard to imagine her gaining weight in her condition. Her weight at autopsy was 112 pounds, so she probably lost something on the order of eight pounds in those two weeks if we're willing to accept a stable 120 up until the time of the PEG tube removal. That's an approximate 7% loss. Even if we were to extrapolate directly that overall loss to the brain mass (which, based on ghost's enlightening comments below, doesn't seem reasonable) we can conclude she would have begun with ≈658 grams of brain mass, still significantly less than Quinlan's. None of this has any foundation in medicine, nor are there citable sources to confirm these numbers (other than her 120 in '89, her tea consumption, her brain mass at post of 615 grams, and her body weight at post of 112) but it seems a reasonably productive exercise in order to at least approximate the validity of comparison. Duckecho 02:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe this is answered on page 13 of the PDF file, which says: "At autopsy, the brain weighed 615 grams. A total of 645 milliliters of cerebrospinal fluid (weighing 678 grams) were recovered upon opening the skull and exposing the brain." This would fit with the 2002 CT scan, which showed that a large area of brain tissue had been replaced by fluid. Note that the weight of the brain and cerebrospinal fluid were close to being the same - that missing 50% of brain mass was presumably replaced by the fluid. -- ChrisO 20:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ann, I'm no more of a Dr. than most of the other editors.  That said, the body works to protect the central nervous system at the expense of all other parts of the body, including the heart.  For examples of this, look into hypothermia.  Although Terri's dehydration had an undeniable effect on her body, the brain is the last place where we should expect to see a reduction in tissue fluid.  Thus, it makes sense that measuring the mass of the brain would give the pathologists a clearer picture of it's pre-dehydration condition than a similar procedure would for any other organ (for example the liver).--ghost 22:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable, ghost.  I'd be happier with a clarification from a doctor on that matter, but, for the moment, I accept that the 13 days of dehydration might not have had as much of an effect on the weight of her brain as on her overall weight.  Thanks.  Ann Heneghan 22:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Weight of Terri's Brain 

message: I was referring in the previous bulimia section to "In 1992, Mr. Schiavo, on behalf of Mrs. Schiavo and himself, brought a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been treating Schiavo for infertility, claiming that the doctor's failure to diagnose Schiavo's eating disorder caused her current condition. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that Schiavo had been bulimic and that the obstetrician's failure to diagnose this condition had caused her hypokalemia and subsequent cardiac arrest." and someone's later comment (whether true or not I don't know) that bulimia would not have been expected to leave evidence to be found at this autopsy. So if big bucks were paid based on a jury's findings after hearing experts and further evidence wasn't expected to be found in the autopsy, then finding no evidence neither adds to nor subtracts from the jury's conclusions that the doctor's failure to diagnose her eating disorder was contributory to her cardiac arrest. Am I missing something? 4.250.201.181 18:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are missing something.  The jury found negligence on the part of OB/GYN in not ordering the tests which would have detected a potassium imbalance alleged to have been caused by bulimia.  The jury did not need to find that Terri was in fact bulimic to find this liability. patsw 20:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true, but it doesn't mean they didn't. We don't know that they found that she was bulimic or that they didn't, since so far as I am aware, the transcript, order, or other results of that trial are not in the public domain. Duckecho 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, as far as I'm aware, the doctor who was found guilty of malpractice appealed and won the appeal.  Ann Heneghan 20:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the Terri Schiavo Timeline Terri Schiavo is awarded $250,000 in an out-of-court medical malpractice settlement with one of her physicians. Michael brings a medical malpractice suit against the obstetrician who had been treating Terri for infertility. Jury finds the obstetrician had not properly diagnosed Terri's condition. The case is appealed. The medical malpractice suit against Terri's obstetrician is settled before an appeal is decided. Terri receives $750,000. Michael receives $300,000. FuelWagon 02:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Then where did the money come from? There was an out of court settlement with one doctor prior to trial, but I don't believe that's where the $750K/300K came from. My understanding is that the doctor who was found guilty at trial (to the tune of several million $) appealed and then settled with the Schiavo's before the appeal was heard. And it's my understanding that's where the $750K/300K came from. Do you have something different? Duckecho 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, this is more minutia. Yes, accuracy is important. But I can't fathom why anyone would spend so much time arguing against bulimia unless they wanted desperately to keep the "michael strangled terri" conspiracy alive. FuelWagon 02:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulimia

message: "Quill stressed that, despite a lack of evidence of any electrical activity in her cerebral cortex, Schiavo is not technically brain-dead.
"In brain death the cortex is not functioning -- as in Terri Schiavo's case -- but also the base of the brain isn't functioning," he explained. Neurologists agree that shutdown of both the cortex and the base of the brain constitutes "a medical reason to stop treatment," he said.
However, the base of the Schiavo's brain still functions, and although "there's still a lot of discussion, there's no consensus at all [among experts] that this constitutes death," Quill said.
This means patients like Schiavo hover in an ideological and medical limbo, somewhere between life and death." 
On the other hand here is a case of a brain dead woman being kept alive "A 26-year-old pregnant woman with cancer whose brain function ceased last month is being kept alive with a respirator in hopes she can have a very premature baby who has a chance to survive. Susan Torres, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), lost consciousness May 7 when an undiagnosed brain tumor caused a stroke while she dined at home. Her husband, Jason Torres, says doctors told him Susan's brain functions have stopped."  
4.250.201.181 19:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're not.  You've come to the crux of one of the tragic paradoxes surrounding this case for many of us.  If Terri did "die" 15 yrs ago, then why the controversy?  If she didn't "die" until March 31st, 2005, then was the removal feeding tube truly the cause of her death?  You may have to answer that one for yourself.  BTW, you may wish to become a registered User.[edit]  Your questions add value.--ghost 23:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Please don't make this page a discussion board for what defines death.  As Tony just said anyone can edit it but Death already has a page. patsw 12:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we can't handle this question with a little more compassion than that, Patsw.  This Anon user is asking a legitimate question for which there may never be an answer.  All I suggested is that we all need to answer such things for ourselves.  But there's no need to slam the question.--ghost 13:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead is a matter of definition

message: ghost asked me to mediate. What's going on? How can I help? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:Note the times on your two edits and my revert of Patsw's edit a minute later. It wasn't my intent to revert yours as I didn't know about them, but having seen your edits, it's just as well, as I don't think they're up to the standard that has been set in the editing of this article so far. Duckecho 18:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator on duty

message: The article states "a number of bottles of prescription medicine were found in the kitchen." That's rather vague and, as written, could describe half of the kitchens in the U.S. Were they empty, or just in a drawer? Anyone know? --Yath 20:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was in the article mid-April.  I queried the significance of it at the time, and Professor Ninja took it out.  It was put in again recently.  I still don't see the significance, and think it should be taken out again - in fact, I'm going to take it out now.  If it has some special significance then I think it should be discussed here before it goes back in.  And if it has some significance, I think it would have to be made explicit in the article.  Ann Heneghan 20:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Presumably it's an allusion to a possible medication-related cause for her collapse, but if the person who added it can't come out and state the possibility directly and then back it up, it shouldn't be there. Fox1 20:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a description of the intial scene, as described in the police report. --Viriditas  | Talk 04:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Viriditas put it back in at Noon on the 16th . On the one hand Viriditas' point "[i]n light of Thogmartin's recent statement that drugs were not ruled out nor capable of detecting diet pills or caffeine, add back key police report item that was removed" is well taken. I fear, however, that it incites speculation about what they might be. The answer, according to the ME was that there wasn't any way of knowing, and certainly weren't screened for other than the typical cannabis, morphine or heroin derivatives, etc., that would be typically suspect on admission for this type of case. My thought is leave it out, but since Ann wants it out, I may have to rethink this... Duckecho 21:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has ANY relevance, it is probably when the autopsy doctor says something about the blood tests when Terri was first admitted to a hospital wouldn't have tested for this or that, but that the police report noted prescription bottles here and there. Then at least it is clear that the prescription bottles are a 'dead end' as far as empirical evidence is concerned. If you mention the bottles without the fact that no tests were made for those medications, then you mention bottles and leave it as some sort of implication that Terri overdosed or Michael poisoned her, or whatever, and it's left as an unanswered question. Mentioning that no tests were ever done for those medications would at least put the bottles in the context that any speculation of overdose/poisoning is just speculation and will likely never be known with absolute empirical certainty. But then, since it will never be known with any certainty, the relevancy seems low. It's almost like reporting "the trash hadn't been taken out". and the question "who cares?" comes to mind. FuelWagon 22:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement from the St. Petersburg police report (written by (Officer Philip Brewer?) is not intended to make a case or imply anything.  The full quote from the report states: "Writer found nothing unusual inside the apartment.  There were no signs of a struggle  or anything that would indicate a crime had been committed.  Various bottles of prescription medicine were present in the kitchen, however, only two were prescribed to Theresa."     In regards to Thogmartin's statement that drugs were not ruled out nor were the tests capable of detecting certain drugs, the passage from the police report is highly relevant.  You will notice that I did not  include "only two were prescribed to Theresa" so as to avoid any implications. We don't know how many bottles there were, and we don't know if the drugs belong to other people, which is why I only briefly mentioned it.  I see nothing wrong with describing the scene of the initial emergency. --Viriditas  | Talk 04:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of prescription bottles 

message: :It is unclear whether or not Thogmartin was aware of this testimony or if the testimony itself is in dispute.
What's clear is that this is editorializing and speculating on the state of Thogmartin's knowledge of the record.  If every conclusion made by a figure in the article has an added it is unclear if ... we will have chaos.
To be honest, I can't even recognize what POV this is pushing.  We have to start from the premise that Thogmartin, Pearse, Wolfson, and even Greer were familiar with the record unless something they later wrote is contradicted in the earlier record.
Note to readers: this article is chock full of things that are unclear, unknown, and unanswerable. patsw 15:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, that's for sure! NCdave 06:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It is unclear whether or not ... 

message: Ann Heneghan's edit of the Autopsy section got caught in a revert I was doing, and was inadvertently reverted along with the other material. However the phrase "has the authority" does appear in that Section, but to disambiguate the paragraph, I'll just reword it to more accurately reflect the sentiment it's trying to convey. Duckecho 00:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back, without realizing that you were writing about it here.  Section 1 of the Statutes says "shall . . . have performed such . . . autopsies" etc.  Cremation falls under Section 1.  Section 2 says "shall have the authority" in cases falling under Section 1.  I'm not sure that my "is required" is the very best possible rendering of "shall", especially since "was required" is found earlier in the same sentence.  If you find something equally or more accurate, fine.  I'm off to bed now.  Ann Heneghan 00:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autopsy requirement 

message: I did some major reordering. The legal dispute section put all the legal disputes into one big block. I added subsections. There were also some legal disputes in other sections that I moved into the legal dispute section, such as the 2003 petition. I moved the piece describing PVS into the front of the section that first diagnoses Terri as PVS. And there were family dispute stuff sort of scattered throughout the article which I put next to each other (should be compressed and combined at some point). The section that was titled PVS was actually the section about various disputes about the diagnosis, so I retitled it, and combined all the stuff that was disputing the diagnosis there. The "diagnosis dispute" section seems to be a good place to put everything that WASN"T from one of the doctors who didn't actually examine Terri, such as Cheshire, and the doctors who watched the Schindler video and signed affidavits, the lawyer who claimed Terri said "Waaa", etc. I also tried to put the legal disputes in somewhat of a chronological order. Should probably do that with the family dispute stuff too. I didn't change any content, I just changed where it appeared in the article. FuelWagon 15:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. A glass of wine with you, sir; you have a good eye. This will make it that much easier when we set about massaging content for readability and better literary (in the encyclopedic sense) form. Thanks for your efforts. Duckecho 17:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: There's still a massive amount of bloat and repeated information, but the structure is definitely better.  Good job.  Proto 10:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorder 

message: :Gov. Jeb Bush asked a Florida prosecutor today to investigate what he said were varying accounts of the time that had elapsed between Terri Schiavo's collapse 15 years ago and the moment that her husband summoned help.
:The governor's request to the Pinellas-Pasco County state attorney, Bernie McCabe, comes two days after the results of Ms. Schiavo's autopsy were made public. New York Times Jun 17
I thought this story would go somewhere on Monday or Tuesday and it hasn't.  I suspect that it will go nowhere, and until it does, it doesn't need to be part of the article. patsw 23:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request by Governor Bush to Investigate the Timeline