Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 43

message: The section currently says something to this effect:
:In accordance with the Catholic ritual of Viaticum, she received Holy Communion for the last time; it had been administered to her once through her feeding tube just before it was removed. The Eucharist can be offered under either form (or species), and, as her tongue was too dry to receive a small piece of the Communion host, a tiny drop of consecrated wine was applied to her tongue instead.
Can someone explain grammatically what "The Eucharist can be offered under either form (or species)" means? either implies two choices. grammatically, the above construction is confusing as to what those two choices are. FuelWagon 23:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand FWs point, by a separate channel. I will try another fix. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That clarifies it, Dominick. FuelWagon 05:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: hash

message: I find the second paragraph of that section a bit strange, with all the "bullet 17" etc. bits. Also, I think there's too much quotation within quotation, so I want to look up the documents and see what was taken verbatim, and what is or can be paraphrased. AnnH ♫ 08:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the spirit of summary style we should paraphrase concisely where we can and not over-use quotes. Marskell 09:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It was originally the wording from the Guardian ad litem with the idea that his wording would be the most neutral. An edit war broke out over various specific accusations made by the Schindlers, and they got included with references to the bullet numbers in their motion against Michael. So, it is a mix of neutral Guardian ad litem information along with specific POV accusations by the Schindlers. FuelWagon 14:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of quotes here was a mess. I've tried to clarify and shorten. However, the reference to specific bullets still remains. It seems a little odd but I don't want to drop a reference unnecessarily. I did drop the S's felt Michael was "not acting in her best interests." This is obvious. Marskell 11:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Oral Feeding and the Second Guardianship Challenge" section

message: Does anyone have more detailed information on the cause of her heart attack(supposedly an eating disorder)? Superm401 | Talk 19:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. What you read in the current version of the article is about the limit of known reliable information. Doctors noted a potassium imbalance after Terri collapsed. They think it may have been due to an eating disorder. Michael filed a lawsuit against the doctor for not detecting the eating disorder and won the lawsuit, which was appealed, and then settled out of court. During that trial, a friend testified she believed Terri had an eating disorder and Michael testified that he saw some peculiar eating habits from Terri. a while later (a few years?) a bone scan came out that the Schindlers tried to use to prove that Michael had abused Terri and that she may have collapsed because he choked her, beat her, or similar. But this must also be viewed in contrast to the fact that for about 4 years, the Schindlers got along just fine with Michael while he was Terri's guardian. The big blowout came when they had a fight over how to spend the lawsuit money. This is when the Schindler's first challenge Michael's guardianship, but they were never successful in removing him as guardian, despite repeated efforts. It was several years after her collapse taht the bone scan came to the Schindler's attention, and they used that information in one of their attempts to remove Michael as guardian. Doctors then revealed that the damage seen on the bonescan was consistent with someone who had collapsed while standing and had been given CPR by paramedics. For several years, there isn't much else about the cause fo Terri's collapse. The autopsy results said that there was no scarring of her esophogaus that would be consistent with an eating disorder, nor did the autopsy find any evidence of abuse or physical assault. The autopsy also noted that the potasium levels may have been altered by Terri's treatment immediately after her collapse, in which she would ahve been given an IV for fluids, and that may explain the potassium levels. I think the autopsy said her heart looked normal. It also mentions that the sort of blood tests they did on Terri when she first collapsed were much more limited than the sort of tests they would do now. In short, the autopsy says we don't know why she had the cardiac arrest. Other than that, there's not much else other than a whole bunch of speculation that doesn't have objective support. FuelWagon 19:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I guessed there was no better information. Superm401 | Talk 20:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We argue here a lot here, but it is f***ing weird. There just ain't a final answer. Marskell 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eating Disorder 

message: I've been moving slowly across the article with a minefield-procedure; editing one thing at a time and explaining it carefully. I've got to the section titled "Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit" and that's my first major stumbling block. I don't understand it. "Schiavo came home to her family in September", it says, but what is "her family" at this point? Her husband? Her parents? Both? Is this the period, mentioned later in the section, when Michael Schiavo is living with the Schindlers? 
And why is the chronological order broken up in the first two paragraphs? The PVS diagnosis is apparently made while she is still in hospital and some months after that she is taken home. Is there a good reason for describing these events out of order?
Can someone more clueful than I am enlighten me? :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When she first came home, I believe it was a joint effort between her husband and her parents to try to take care of her, but they were immediately overwhelmed by the level of her needs. The big breakup between her husband and her parents didn't happen until years after her initial collapse when the malpractice suit was finally settled and there was a big argument over money. Before that point, Michael (the husband) actually stayed at the parents place for free for several months, so they were getting along just fine. After the malpractice-money argument, they didn't speak to each other, that's also when the Schindlers first challenge Michael's guardianship, the PVS diagnosis, etc. FuelWagon 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It bounces around chronologically a little bit because one paragraph is talking about Terri's location and another is talking about her condition. I spent a lot of time carving up the article to put it in chronological order, but I didn't see this as too problematic to rearrange it. FuelWagon 21:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit 

message: What bothers me most about this case is how fast and loose the judge (who after all is a mere lawyer in black robes) was with the law as written.  This was a euthanasia case.  Not a right to die case.  There was no living will and darn little to realisticly indicate how lady would have wanted the situation handled.  This lady was mercy-killed by the state and no satisfactory review of the case was ever given upon the central medical facts.  Death row imates get better legal representation than this lady got.
The central question remains does the state have the right to starve someone to death just because they have become a financial burden?  Where shall this slippery slope lead us to?
Perhaps euthanasia laws are needed -- we are long overdue for this honest debate -- but there are none on the books right now so this judge should be punished for overstepping his authority.  He is not a Super-Legislator and certainly not a King – or is he?  Or should I say “He”?
I would like to see a section dealing with the law here.  I feel the judge far exceeded his authority.  Tough cases make for bad law but that does not give carte blanche to our men in black to play God.
Also I would like to see some scientific challenge to the results of the autopsy.  I saw that lady follow a balloon around the room with her eyes.  If she was blind, how did she do that?
I am very suspicious of the results.  It just does not add up.
:Actually, it was a living will.  The problem was, the living will was given orally, which is legal in Florida.  The parents were understandably skeptical, given the lack of written record, and sued. They never provided any satisfactory evidence against the oral will described by the husband, and so lost.  Superm401 | Talk 07:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Matter of Law 

message: An oral living will?  thats a new one!  Now that is very fast and loose with law.  This lis legal in Florida?  I wonder if that was written by law-makers or a judge.  
True, there have been many court challanges but never were the medical facts reviewed.  Was Terry alive in part or not?  That was never answered until they sawed her brain apart.  And by then she was certainly 100% percent dead.
For all the talk about the Patriot Act and how it supposedly curtails our rights and freedoms, no liberal seems particularly disturbed that the government can order the execution of an invalid "for their own good" ( as well as free up any funds they might have in their bank accounts).
-- mccommas
:Lawmakers.  Get your facts straight. Superm401 | Talk 15:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oral living will !! 

message: mccommas, whatever propaganda site you are currently getting your information from, I don't care. But you're becoming an uninformed bother on this page. For your information, there was a rather famous trial in 2002 to determine whether or not Terri was PVS, whether she had any chance of recovery, and to review all the medical facts. The basic info is here. A new CAT scan was performed. EEG's were taken. This is also when the Schindlers made SIX HOURS of video tape, then heavily edited down to 4.5 minutes of clips. You could video tape two people playing with a Ouija board for 6 hours and find 4.5 minutes of clips that would "prove" that Ouija boards really do have psychic powers. The result was that three neurologists said Terri was PVS with no hope of recovery. And one neurologist/quack said she was MCS and could recover with his hyperbaric therapy (which doesn't exist in any medical textbooks). And one radiologist (who happened to be friends of teh Schindlers) said Terri was MCS. The court ruled that Terri was PVS with no hope of recovery. Also, take into consideration that prior to this trial, three other neurologists had diagnosed Terri to be PVS with no chance of recovery. And finally, Terri was first diagnosed as PVS with no chance of recover within a year or so after her collapse in 1990. The Schindlers did not even dispute this diagnosis until twelve years later in 2002, when the diagnosis trial was held, and that was only because all their other legal options had run out. So, in the end, you've got 7 neurologists who say she was PVS with no hope of recovery. and 1 radiologist/friend-of-family and 1 neurologist/quack who said she was MCS. So, I think one can safely say that the medical facts were "reviewed". FuelWagon 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: never were the medical facts reviewed

message: "I have to add this.  I am studying for my history quiz tomorrow and I quote this from my text book 
" The Nazis systematically killed by gassing, lethal injections, or starvation those peoples judged useless to society, especially the mentally and physically handicapped.  Nazi eugenics measures served as a precursor to the wholesale extermination of peoples classified as racially inferiors such as gypsies and Jews."
"But this is different" I hear you saying but is it?
-- Mccommas
:I must have missed the part where you showed how Teri was declared racially or genetically inferior, and how Florida (or the US, for that matter) systematically rounded up everyone similar to her to kill them en masse. Ronabop 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  something to make you go Hummmm.... 

message: There's no link to Judge George Greer in the article. Is there a reason for that? Andjam 15:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, feel free to correct this. Superm401 | Talk 16:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judge Greer 

message: The normal rules of the Wikipedia still apply: deleting, rewording, rewriting substantial parts of this (or any) article require a reason.
To avoid an editing conflict in the article, it will be useful to discuss the reason here on the talk page before making the change and to obtain an editing consensus for the change.
It's a Wikipedia biographical article and the form of biographical articles which cover the subject to the detail we have here include siblings and the significant events of their relationships.  It is part of the story of the life of the subject and not merely a single incident and its aftermath in her life or impact on medical ethics, law, and culture. patsw 19:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a Wikipedia biographical article and the form of biographical articles which cover the subject to the detail we have here include siblings and the significant events of their relationships. It is part of the story of the life of the subject and not merely a single incident and its aftermath in her life or impact on medical ethics, law, and culture. patsw 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed some inconsitency in the way in which parenthetical statements are added near citations/footnotes.  When there is a sentence or phrase that is followed by a footnote link which directs the reader to the footnotes at the bottom of the page, there is, on occasion, a parenthetical note telling the reader on what page or section of the cited document the information appears.  In some instances, these parenthetical statements appear PRIOR to the footnote link and, in other instances, they appear AFTER the footnote link.  I am relatively certain people are not too fussy about where these should appear.  I am of the mind that a parenthetical statement related to a footnote should appear after the footnote link.  I would like to change them so they are all the same, but I want to ensure you all are OK with that.  Please let me know if I'm not explaining this fully enough, and I'll try to elaborate or I will give you a specific example from the article.--Minaflorida 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion that anything that improves readability and makes the article more encyclopedic is a good thing.  Go for it!--ghost 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reminder on editing the article