Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 19

Introduction Section, Short or Long?
User Tropix has inserted a lot of stuff into the "intro" that is a lot of detail. Unfortunately, now the intro contains serious out-of-order problems, and brings up some hot-button issues without explaining them in detail or in complete context. Does wikipedia or the contributers here have any general sense of whether the intro should be a short summary of Terris life, or whether it should just info-dump as much as possible? FuelWagon 11:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been pointed out that Tropix is very likely a Sock Puppet for an experienced wikipedia user. (I learn something new every day. For one, knuckleheads are usually the ones with way too much time on their hands.) I'm thinking everything inserted by Tropix should be dumped. Cause the more I look at Tropix's edits, the more work I see trying to bring them back to a neutral point of view. There was a blatant POV about Pearson saying Michael had a conflict of interest, but Tropix conveniently never mentioned that Pearson said the exact same thing about the Schindlers. I tried to fix it in the article, but every fix makes the intro that much longer. FuelWagon 11:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone just cut the intro down to 1 paragraph and put the rest of the intro into a section called "timeline". I don't mind that, but I'm noticing that information is getting stated in multiple places. The structure of the entire article appears to need rework. Perhaps the whole article could use some benefit in being put into some sort of rough chronological order. There is just so much stuff that has no context around it. I'm feeling a bit burned out and overwhelmed. Maybe we could pull out the legislative stuff and put it into its own section? I dunno. FuelWagon 12:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments on this below, in Tropix the Sockpuppet.

Meanwhile, this is the recent version of the intro (slightly improved) that was there before FuelWagon removed it (after making it longer, but before complaining it was too long). I don't say it is perfect. I do say it is preferable to what is there now. Some discussion would be useful. Tropix 03:10, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)


 * On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage  caused by a cardiac arrest.  Apparently it was caused by a potassium     deficiency in her blood.  In turn, this may have been due to bulimia.


 * In 1992, she was awarded $1 millon in malpractice settlements and awards, to be used for her treatment, and her husband Michael Schiavo was awarded $300,000 for loss of consortium. Until 1994 she received experimental treatment, neurological testing and therapy.


 * In May of 1998, Michael Schiavo petitioned the Pasco-Pinellas Circuit Court for authority to remove her feeding tube. The court appointed a guardian ad litem, Pearse, who produced a report concluding that Terri Schiavo was in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS), but that Michael had a financial conflict of interest since he would be the sole inheritor of her money. Pearse also stated that the Schindlers had stated that their hope was that they would be granted guardianship, Michael would divorce their daughter and they would become Terri's "heirs at law". Pearson noted "neither side is exempt from ... possible conflicts of interest." A trial was held.


 * On February 11, 2000 Circuit Court Judge George Greer ordered that Micheal Schaivo could discontinue Terri's life support. The Judge based this order on his findings that she was in a persistent vegetative state, and that before her illness she had made statements such as that she would not want to be kept alive "on a machine". This decision was upheld upon appeal by 19 separate judges.


 * Since Judge Greer was the "trier of fact," the other courts never reopened the issues of whether or not Terri was conscious, and whether or not she had actually expressed such wishes, and the Schindlers were not allowed to present new evidence to those courts to get those previous "facts" reexamined. They did present new evidence to Judge Greer, but he dismissed the new evidence out of hand, without meaningful consideration. NCdave 00:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * On March 18, 2005 her gastric feeding tube was removed on the order of Judge Greer. The Judge denied a motion to provide food and water by natural means. Terri Schiavo died of dehydration on March 31 at around 9:05 a.m. EST (13:05 UTC), after 13 days without the feeding tube or water.  An autopsy has been performed, but the results have not yet been released.


 * Michael Schiavo, her husband and legal guardian, contended that he carried out his wife's wishes not to keep her alive on life support. Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her brother and sister, disputed Mr. Schiavo's contention that she would not have wished to be kept alive and claim that Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state. Her parents vigorously appealed the judicial decisions, leading to the reinsertion of the feeding tube on two separate occasions. The courts all ruled in favor of Mr. Schiavo, and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time.

Splitting controversy section
I think we should think seriously about splitting the "controversy" section into Terri Schiavo controversy as long as we maintain and preserve the key points of each subsection (Michael Schiavo, Bone scan, Schindler family, and 2003 petition). See also Article_size for some issues related to this task. I think it's important to focus on Terri Schiavo, and if people want more information about these other issues, they should be able to find it easily. --Viriditas | Talk 10:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would get it under the recommended size limit. Maybe we could get rid of the NPOV tag on the main page and just have it on the "controversy" page. Is there anything about Terri Schiavo that isn't controversial? I mean if NCdave says Michael murdered Terri for the money, and if we really have to pay attention to that sort of witchhunt mentality, then splitting it up will get the size down, but won't get an article that is free of the POV tag. If we have to get agreement from every moron with a conspiracy theory, it will always be disputed. And to me, one possible big advantage of splitting it up would be getting a chunk of stuff that people could agree on. I don't know. I know wikipedia has size recommendations, but if you take everything under controversy, you lose the "medical opinion" stuff, and then the whole history of Terri seems out of context. Unless we could agree that the "medical opinion" stuff is Neutral and save the video diagnosis and other voodoo for the controversy page. FuelWagon 11:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am suspicious that after a weekend of editing adding material with a pro-Michael Schiavo POV and deleting material with a pro-Schindler POV, the concern is now on size. Not certain but suspicious.  Was there an official wiki determination that the pro-Michael Schiavo POV is the neutral POV?  patsw 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What Proto said. The truth is never POV. If you dispute the truth, tough. An article on the Holocaust isn't going to be NPOV by including "pro-Holocaust" or holocaust-denier related material. If the truth tends to fall on Michael Schiavo's side, then that's just the way it is. Professor Ninja 15:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was supposed to be no POV ... as far as I can tell the article is finally fairly neutral, unless stating empirical truth can be construed as being pro-Michael Schiavo. Proto 14:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Relevance Test
What are the neutral and objective guidelines that one can apply to understand what's relevant in the Terri Schiavo article and what's not? I don't want to waste time or have anyone for that matter waste time researching and adding material only to have it deleted because it failed to pass another editor's relevance test. In the general case, a wiki article doesn't have a finely calibrated test for relevance merely factual accuracy. If the article has to be long because there are two or more sides to disputed claims, so be it. A one-sided presentation doesn't serve the user community. If this article is to have a netural POV, then its test for relevance ought to be neutrally stated rather that arbitrarily imposed ex post facto. patsw 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

URL Test
What are the neutral and objective guidelines that one can apply to understand what material will require a URL to support it and what will not? If anyone can declare that material not having a URL to support it can be deleted, the editing of this article will plunge into chaos.

For example, in many cases there are only newspaper and wire service reports of what was in exhibits, statements, motions, depositions, or court orders. Does that constitute support or does such material for which there is no primary online source and yet no dispute regarding its existence (1) fail to meet the URL test and (2) can be immediately deleted? patsw 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Cite your work as best you can, really. I generally try to follow a rule of thumb that if it's a second hand source, I cite try to cite two such sources to give independent confirmation of one another. I tend to ignore this little rule for more reputable sites like CNN or the BBC or whatnot, as they're generally accurate (a good 99% of the time.) Rags and whatnot, online or not, aren't even worth citing, and material that originates from such places (unless they're op-eds which you're quoting pieces from) aren't worth placing in the article at all. Most important is that people just want to see that you're not making it up whole cloth, or pulling "facts" from blogs, rags, or op-eds. Professor Ninja 16:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I would have written a similar test myself.  To take this to something that is bound to be a point of contention, I have never seen a primary source of the February 25 1990 police report or the admitting report for Humana Northside, is there one?  I have seen only secondary accounts which in part contradict the absence of trauma now in the article.  If these secondary accounts of what is in the reports indicate a stiff or rigid neck, then how can that be reflected in the article without introducing POV?  Rather than focusing on this one issue, how are conflicts among the secondary accounts resolved, when there is no online primary source, in a manner that does not introduce POV? patsw 17:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That might be tricky to find; medical reports are confidential, and generally police reports are public. I don't know what florida law is in respect to police responding to a medical emergency, but if those too are public you may be able to get a copy of it. If secondary accounts reflect that the initial report genuinely reflect something, than it's not necessarily POV. If the secondary report is genuinely reputable (ie: they don't have a liberal/conservative/pro-life/pro-euthanasia axe to grind) and can get confirmation from other sources, then putting in something along the lines of "On x day/199x/200x CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/BBC/ABC/Local Newspaper reported that Schiavo was displaying symptoms of rigidity in her neck [cites]". It doesn't speculate as to what caused it, and it gives sources. I think most people would consider this sufficient to be reported on. I wouldn't report it as a definitive fact (make a point that is was reported) and I wouldn't speculate on what that means/could imply. Also, I wouldn't cite a source that doesn't provide examples from the report, or makes general paraphrases or draws conclusions from it. (In other words, count NewsMax out). Remember most importantly that if something is true, it supercedes it being POV. For example, alot of what's got most of this discussion page ragging on NCdave is that he disputes things that are undoubtedly factually accurate as being POV, and attempts to make it "NPOV" by countering facts with speculation. None of the editors have a problem with anything that's factually accurate (well, maybe some do, I've had certain edits reverted for having a "hypercritical mentality") as long as you don't make it up, speculate as to what it means, draw irrelevant conclusions. Rule of thumb: let common sense be your guide. Professor Ninja 22:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Stiff neck and other odd physical characteristics.
 * Symptoms of Bulemia and/or Anorexia
 * Eating uncontrollably (Bulemia only), purging, strict dieting, fasting, vigorous exercise
 * Vomiting or abusing laxatives or diuretics in an attempt to lose weight.
 * Vomiting blood
 * Using the bathroom frequently after meals.
 * Preoccupation with body weight
 * Depression or mood swings. Feeling out of control.
 * [b]Swollen glands in neck and face[/b]
 * Heartburn, bloating, indigestion, constipation
 * Irregular periods
 * Dental problems, sore throat
 * Weakness, exhaustion bloodshot eyes
 * From the link http://www.mamashealth.com/bulimia.asp. Please note that dental problems (loss of calcium) could also explain the joint and leg problems.


 * I have done a little more research on why primary sources do not exist and we must go with the characterizations of them we have in testimony: Michael Schiavo has sealed the medical records of Terri Schiavo. So if we read in testimony by Drs. Bamkbakidis and Hammesfahr information regarding the 1990 admission report and that testimony was not challenged, it is as close as we are going to get to the 1990 admission report, unless Michael Schiavo decides to release the medical records.  So is the sworn testimony of two doctors -- for which I have a URL, considered to be POV or NPOV?  For the sake of balance, is there an online source other than Bamkbakidis and Hammesfahr for what is contained in the hospital admission report? patsw 02:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It may help to see it in context to determine whether or not it's POV. If you have sworn testimony from two doctors, it's testimony, regardless of its credibility. We can insert critiques of the doctors if need be. What you can always do is format it and put it up here on the talk page for an ad hoc peer review before patching it into the article. Professor Ninja 12:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

User Tropix a possible sock puppet -- No.
Tropix started contributions to wikipedia two days ago. he's quite a fast learner because he just posted a change with a field. Very savvy. Either that, or he's a sock puppet to avoid a 3 revert rule. Does wikipedia do anything about sock puppets or do you have to put up with that sort of crap? FuelWagon 23:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure why Tropix's post didn't show up here, but here it is in  form: FuelWagon 00:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon has made a ridiculous assertion (except for the compliments, which are well-taken, but just barely). I have just one account 'Tropix', and I log in like just like everyone here is supposed to do. If I am a fast learner it is just because I am trying to do this right.

I have been trying to communicate in a useful way with FuelWagon on his talk page with, unfortunately, no productive results. Then I come here and see the above. A nice introduction.

Specifically, Mr FuelWagon removed what I considered a clear introductory summary from the Terri Schiavo article today and replaced it with an older garbled version. I thought it was reasonable to go to his talk page to discuss it with him. That apparently led him to start talking "sockpuppet" and "crap" here in public. I am not here to waste my time on such nonsense.

I want this article to be non-biased and factual, and that is why I am here. Specifically, I think an incoming reader will have a better introduction to this article with the following events to define the structure:

1 - 1990 Terri Schiavo's heart attack and brain damage 2 - 1992 The malpractice awards and settlements 3 - To 1994 Her therapy 4 - 1998 Micheal's petition to end her life 5 - 2000 The court order that authorized Micheal to end life support 6 - 2000-2005 The mass of appeals (summarized together) 7 - 2005 Her death and the general circumstances Given that, the reader can move on to the details. It can be done in just a few short paragraphs. Is this reasonable? Tropix 00:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)


 * Actually, Terri's therapy ended in 1992, not 1994. Her family had run out of money to pay for it.  When the malpractice money was awarded, in January 1993, a 3/4 $million medical trust fund was created for Terri's care and rehabilitative therapy.  The Schindlers wanted it to be used for that purpose (as Michael Schiavo had promised the court in November, 1992), but Michael Schiavo refused to permit her therapy to resume.  The result was a big family argument on February 14, 1993. NCdave 07:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I perhaps had bad information. My source was a site at the University of Miami which read "July 19, 1991 - Terri Schiavo is transferred to Sable Palms skilled care facility where she receives continuing neurological testing, and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994." I did think that was oddly late for the end of therapy. Tropix 07:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)


 * The assertion I made was that you're a possible sock puppet. It seems qualified sufficiently with the word "possible" that it holds up to scrutiny. The "crap" of which I spoke was sock puppets in general since I could find nothing on wikipedia that said they actually do anything about sock puppets. As for your list, I note you've already changed your version from what you put on my talk page. So, perhaps there were some productive results after all. And I still think the core of this issue (Terri Schiavo, not you) is the legal battles between Michael and Terri's parents, which is represented well in the intro as it is. If you had to describe this story in one sentence, it would be the fight between michael to fulfill his wife's wishes versus the parents stated intent to keep her alive even if Terri had told them she would want the plug pulled. That's the crux of the story. The rest of it is narrative to put everything into context. FuelWagon 00:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It could be worse, Tropix. If FuelWagon suspected you of being a Christian, he'd really dis you.  This is what he thinks of Christians. NCdave 07:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, NCdave, the words I wrote, and the words you report me to have said, are in complete misalignment. I said Cheshire is biased because he writes opinion papers that espouse the conservative christian viewpoint. No disrespect to christians or christianity. It's just that Cheshire is biased, which means that if he gives an "expert medical opinion" on some issue like abortion, stem cell research, or right-to-die issues, his OPINION will lean one way. You had argued that his religious beliefs should be removed from the article, that it wasn't relevant. I said it is completely relevant, because he is weighing in as an "expert medical opinion", and the bias of his opinion needs to be noted. It's a conflict of interest that needs to be kept in context with his opinion. I'm not dis'ing him for his beliefs, nor am I dis'ing christianity. On the other hand, I have absolutely no respect for you, and it has nothing to do with your christian beliefs and everything to do with you continously putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting what I say (like this situation), and I end up having to waste my time defending my character from your libel and defamation. I never "dis"ed anyone.

Paranoia reigns supreme here. My list above was just typed from my mind while I was on this page. The text on your page was typed from my mind while I was there. No cut-and-paste. You can average the two if you wish, there is no special significance. Use either version you like, but I think it would improve the intro (if POV is neutral). That is what was there before you moved it out. I suggest bringing it back, leaving the copies you place in the sections, even though that is slightly redundant.

Why do I think the current intro is sloppy? Here is an example: it goes directly from her collapse in 1990 to a statement about the trial court, without a URL, and without even mentioning that the trial was in 2000, ten years later. That is sloppy by any standards. The trial is extremely significant because it is the predicate for everthing that happened afterwards, even in your view of this story. It can not be shuffled off into a muddle. I improved the intro by adding and dating three significant intervening steps plus the trial date, taking hardly any space. Other aspects were added by other editors and I did not object.

Indeed, I would describe the story differently. You think this is the story of Micheal vs the Schindlers. I think this is the story of Terri, the remarkable tragedy of her brain damage, and her life in the complete control of others. The article, after all, is "Terri Schiavo", not "Micheal vs The Schindlers".

Please stop hassling me, as with the sock puppet that has been placed on my talk page. That is childish witchhunting, and no way to get my respect. Tropix 02:52, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)


 * If it makes you feel any better, even if he was a sock puppet, he's clearly not NCdave's sock puppet. Professor Ninja 04:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * For once, I agree with Professor Ninja: I am not Tropix. NCdave 07:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perry Fine quote removed, review
I just removed this from the main article. Any objections?


 * Perry G. Fine, the vice president of medical affairs at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying: "What my patients have told me over the last 25 years is that when they stop eating and drinking, there's nothing unpleasant about it. In fact, it can be quite blissful and euphoric... the word 'starve' is so emotionally loaded. People equate that with the hunger pains they feel or the thirst they feel after a long, hot day of hiking. To jump from that to a person who has an end-stage illness is a gigantic leap."

It seems a bit off topic since he's talking about end-stage illness rather than PVS patient. Also "blissful and euphoric" doesn't apply to PVS patients since they do not feel or register those kinds of experiences. Anyone demand it be put back in? It's a lot of text that isn't quite on topic, so I thought I'd trim it. FuelWagon 00:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's somewhat appropriate. It's clearly in the context of Schiavo, so it's relevant. What he's saying isn't that PVS patients feel pain. He's saying that even if, for the sake of argument, Terri Schiavo was capable of feeling pain, she would not be feeling pain due to starvation. You could always give it a little trim and put it in context, such as putting it after an area where people contend starving Terri to death is painful. You put, "However, Perry Fine said that even if Terri Schiavo was capable of feeling, that there is "nothing unpleasant about [not eating or drinking]" and that "it can be quite blissful and euphoric". Professor Ninja 03:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, in the first place, Terri was not in a PVS, so the argument about whether death by starvation or hydration is pleasant or unpleasant is relevant. But Professor Ninja is correct that there's a big difference between end-stage terminal illness and non-terminal patients like Terri. End-stage terminal patients often cease to experience hunger, but for a non-terminal patient death by starvation and dehydration is said to be ghastly:
 * "Dr. William Burke, a neurologist in St. Louis, was quoted by medical ethicist Wesley Smith as describing the agonizing process: “A conscious person would feel it (dehydration) just as you and I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucous membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water. Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death.”
 * However, Terri received analgesics (apparently including occasional morphine), to control her pain. NCdave 07:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you talking about? I never even said that. I never even said anything remotely similar to that. And we've gone over this morphine administration thing ad nauseum; administration of morphine is protocol/formality/standard practice, however you want to term it. If she was in pain then why did Mr. Schindler describe his daughter as looking peaceful or calm, or whatever term it was that he used? Aha! "Proof" to the contrary. Professor Ninja 15:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it wasn't peaceful or calm. For somebody in the throws of the agony, desperately in need of morphine to control the crippling pain of being starved to death by a vast left-wing conspiracy of jockeying profiteer husbands, pet judges bound by a leash to Michael Schiavo's Satanic pentagram nipple clamps and supported by his barking partisans, she apparently, after nearly two weeks was doing darn good. Hmm... need to reconcile, need to reconcile. Michael Schiavo probably constructed an elaborate sock puppet or papier mache marionette to bamboozle Clinton-loving communist "journalists" as to why Mr. Schindler "was pleasantly surprised by what [he] saw" and how he was sure his daughter was "doing darn good under the circumstances.". Check. Your move. Professor Ninja 15:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Never said what? I was quoting from an article, not from you.  I included the link to the article at the end.


 * Also, administration of morphine (or other analgesics) to unconscious patients is definitely not protocol/formality/standard practice, simply because unconscious patients cannot feel pain or react to pain. For example, see  which is a reference to a study of the use of analgesics and sedatives in terminal patients from whom life support has been withdrawn.  The abstract notes that, "Patients who did not receive medication were comatose and considered incapable of benefiting from sedation and analgesia."  In fact, sedation to unconsciousness is commonly used instead of analgesics, to give peace to patients who cannot be made comfortable with analgesics.


 * For most of 15 years Terri Schiavo had a standing order for analgesics to relieve menstrual pain. There's no way that her caregivers believed that she did not experience pain.  She behaved as if she experienced pain, which is all, existentially speaking, we know for certain about anyone else's experience of pain.  When someone behaves as if they are experiencing pain, the only rational conclusion is that they are experiencing pain, even though you can't prove it in an absolute sense.


 * Also, take at look at the www.infowarscom/articles/life/schiavo_terris_exit_protocol.htm Exit Protocol] that her hospice doctor wrote up for her in 2001.  Take special note of the instructions to use analgesics for symptoms of pain and discomfort: "Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn."  Plainly, he thought she could experience pain.  A patient who is unconscious does not react to pain stimulus, and so there are no "symptoms of pain/discomfort," and therefore no analgesics can be given in response to such symptoms. NCdave 20:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "But Professor Ninja is correct that there's a big difference between end-stage terminal illness and non-terminal patients like Terri." Really? So there's a periodical out there called "Professor Ninja"? Hell of a coincidence, NCdave. Also, patients who are unconscious can and do react to pain stimulus. Reaction to adverse stimuli does not require a brain, or, for that matter, a nervous system. It doesn't require anything more than a single cell, as amoeba demonstrate in 10th grade biology classes. Also, take note of the fact that he uses the word if, not when. Indefinite vs. definite. She might or she will. World of difference. If she does feel pain (more than likely not, unless a miracle occured in which the nerves began communicating with nothing successfully, a medical impossibility) then medicate. Despite what you might think, that does not prove somebody can feel pain. If an inmate escapes, then you may open fire does not imply that all inmates are escapees or will require being shot. If your car's oil leaks, then you should take it in for repairs does not imply that all cars are lemons or will require repairs. If she feels pain, then medicate as necessary does not imply that she was capable of feeling pain or not in a PVS. You may (though you won't) note that the PubMed retrieved document is a study, not a document of protocol. Note Consecutive 1-year sample of 22 patients from whom life support was withheld or withdrawn in one intensive care unit at a county hospital and a random sample of 22 similar patients in the intensive care unit in the university hospital over the same period. -- So a 1 year study of a university hospital and a county hospital in California are proof of standard practice in Florida? No. RESULTS--Drugs were given to 75% of patients during withholding and withdrawal of life support. Patients who did not receive medication were comatose and considered incapable of benefiting from sedation and analgesia. The median time until death following the initiation of the withholding or withdrawal of life support was 3.5 hours in the patients who received drugs and 1.3 hours in those patients who did not (P, not significant). Physicians ordered drugs to decrease pain in 88% of patients, to decrease anxiety in 85%, to decrease air hunger in 76%, to comfort families in 82%, and to hasten death in 39% Curious, if NCdave is correct then Terri should have been receiving analgesics up until the time of her death, which NCdave previously asserted she was not. If he denies this (I'd say 70% chance he does) I'll wade through the archives and quote him directly on that. Otherwise, I can't be bothered. Furthermore one should note that 82% of the time doctors ordered drugs to comfort the family. So if the Schindlers are harping that their daughter isn't PVS (they were) then there is an 82% change, according to this very study, that Terri would have received drugs. Professor Ninja 22:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not that we needed it, but here's some more proof NCdave's a liar: In this very pdf which he has offered as proof multiple times, on page 2 of 7, you will see "There are many behaviors typical for patients in PVS that someone without neurological training could easily mistake as voluntary. The non-neurologist seldom has experience in observing how the brainstem and basal ganglia behave when deprived of input from the cerebral cortex where consciousness is believed to reside. It is quite common for dedicated and caring family members, hoping desperately for a sign from their loved one, to misinterpret these reflexes as evidence of communication. Such behaviors can include involuntary arousal, eye opening, random eye movements (nystagmus and horizontal scanning, brief eye contact, reflexive withdrawal from noxious stimulus, movement of the lips or mouth or turning of the head in response to oral stimulation (suck and rooting reflexes which also occur in newborn infants), spontaneous grimmacing or smiling or displays of emotion (affective release, usually a momentary gesture), and certain other nonsustained behaviors usually not seen in healthy adults. Some of the video clips of Terri Schiavo that have been presented in the media display such involuntary behaviors." Okay, forget all the time NCdave's advanced that these very indications support the fact that Terri wasn't PVS, and look at the italicized part about noxious stimulus. As in, medicate for symptoms of pain. For Pete's sake man, what is wrong with you? You backpedal so much. Cheshire's right, Cheshire's wrong, which will it be now dave? Right or wrong in this pdf? Or right when you want him to be and wrong when you want him to be, as usual. Professor Ninja 07:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Professor, I'm not averse to a shortened version being put back in. I'm not in favor of it enough to do it myself though. If you want to take the time to trim it, go for it. Otherwise it doesn't look like anyone else is missing it, and we can archive this section of talk. FuelWagon 00:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)