Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 31

Protected
I locked the page and then rolled it back to:
 * 15:44, July 12, 2005 Jredmond m (rv anon test)

I find that contributors of late are lacking in proper decorum. This disturbs me.

If you have strong feelings about this article or matters connected with it, that is a personal problem. Deal with it. Then come back when you're ready to help improve the article.

I observe much more than I comment on. This website uses a wikiwiki, which lets everyone see what everyone else is doing. If your aim fits in with that of the founders, you will find a warm welcome here, but if you are trying to subvert the objectives of this project we will have to ask you to leave. There's no third way.

We can work out all the problems and difficulties cooperatively, if we choose to. Please make this choice. I would like your help.

Thank you. Uncle Ed 16:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cooperative editing
I tried to conduct a Mediation for the last month, but it has not succeeded. Part of the problem is frankly half-hearted participation by some. I'm not naming any names, if the shoe fits, wear it.

We must cooperate.

If you all can't do it without help, then I'm going to set some guidelines.


 * 1) Anyone may move a piece of disputed text out of the article and onto this discussion page. (I call this a "text move".)
 * 2) No one may revert a text move. (I call this the "zero revert rule".)

What's my authority for doing this? None at all, of course, but I intend to keep the article locked until I'm sure there won't be an edit war. And while you're all waiting for that, you might get bored. You might want to try this. You might actually want to start cooperating - with each other, and with the purpose of this project: to create comprehensive unbiased articles. Uncle Ed 17:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the re-ordering of the boxes, Violet: just what I was about to do myself. Ah, nothing like a fresh start! Uncle Ed 17:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

PVS
It's a requirement of NPOV to state the facts, not minority opinions masquerading as facts. Seven neurologists in good standing diagnosed Schiavo as being in a PVS. The court found it so. One neurologist, in not so good standing, as noted in his own article, and as noted by Judge Greer, made a different diagnosis. Our policy suggests that we should fairly represent all views. It is not fair to bias our presentation of the facts to include the view of a single neurologist who is under a cloud. I don't see why -- mediation aside -- we should sacrifice our policies just because a couple of editors push their POV particularly hard. Grace Note 06:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 7+1=Eight, and that's all? No, ...NINE (at least; for we remember two other neurologists, Hammesfahr AND Cheshire + the other medical professionals who felt led to submit affidafits, and I'm sure these weren't dummies either.)--GordonWattsDotCom 20:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Some notes about Cheshires affidavit. FuelWagon 16:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * page 2, paragraph 3, he says "Some of the video clips of Terri Shiavo that have ben presented in the media display ... involuntary behaviours." Of the 4.5 minutes of video, Cheshire admits that some of that is being misrepresented as Terri being aware of her surroundings.


 * page 3, paragraph 2, he recommends fMRI, but this had already been suggested in other affidavits and dismissed. Some of the people who submitted affidavits mentioning fMRI acknowledged that it was highly experimental and would be a procedure to do in a University setting, not a hospital.
 * BTW, there was mention of the fMRI in the autopsy. Something to do with fMRI being fatal to a large (>10%) percent of persons that had received the type of implant that Terri did in CA.
 * Yes but, er, um . . . isn't the removal of a feeding tube fatal in a slightly higher percentage of people? Ann Heneghan 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Page 3, second to last paragraph: he basically says his MCS diagnosis is on his observation of Terri during his visit and "many hours of videotape taken in 2002". The only hours of video taken in 2002 that I know of were submitted by... Hammer. Greer had already thrown Hammer's testimony out because Hammer overstated Terri's responses on the tape. Greer watched the tape himself and counted the responses and came up far short of what Hammer claimed.


 * Yes, but did Greer throw out Cheshire's testimony, and what about those other four neurologists, three of whom sided with Terri's parents? So, what if it was thrown out by Greer? Your point? Are you asking that we report that Greer dismissed Hammesfahr's testimony? OK, fine. Are you asking we fail to mention Hammesfahr, Cheshire, the other three (of four) neurologists who agreed with Terri’s parents, and the slew of other medical professionals in the same mention? No: That's cheating the reader.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "...and counted the responses..." So? Your point? Are you arguing on what to put in the intro? (That would be OK.) Or, instead, are you arguing the merits of the case. (Not OK: We merely present facts, & let readers decide.) Besides, if you were arguing the case, your argument given falls short: Dr. Stephen Hawking, the British astrophysicist who uses a wheelchair and computer to "talk," has ALS, aka "Lou Gehrig's Disease," and he looks like TOTALLY unresponsive (read: PVS), yes, this guy is clearly not.


 * No, it's not "cheating the reader", Gordon. first of all, we can't list every single opinion in the intro. For every armchair doctor you can find that says Terri is MCS, I can find one that says she was PVS. The individual opinions I listed are all the Neurologists who actually saw Terri in person. The guardian ad litems who were assigned to have Terri's interests at heart. The Schindlers, and Michael. These people were actually directly involved with Terri, they either met her, interacted with her, or had a direct impact on her. Some guy looking at a cat scan did not have any direct impact on her. There are 300 million people in america. They ALL have an opinion on Terri, and we are NOT going to list every single one of them. FuelWagon 23:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Under normal circumstances it would make sense that only the statements of those who examined her would count. But we have to remember that the Schindlers were not allowed to have any other doctors examine Terri.  That doesn't seem to be at all obvious from the text.  I don't think it should necessarily go in the introduction (since I think that's too long as it is), but I do think it should go into to the article somewhere?  Does anyone object?  Ann Heneghan 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Perspective
Carl Bernstein said something last night on The Daily Show that struck me as appropriate here. (I'm going from flawed memory...) "The problem is that we're spending more energy defending (political) ideology than we are dealing with Terrorism."  I've noticed that since recent events, we're not talking TO each other, but AT each other. Please, let's focus on the article, not our own views and motivations. Bright Blessings.--ghost 15:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My compliments to the team. Over 48hrs, we started talking TO each other again.  That's what the Talk page is for, and it improves the article.  Kudos.--ghost 01:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro again
Grace Note, I don't agree with your adding that she passed into a PVS because it begs the question. We go on to say that seven said X, and one said Y, so we shouldn't pre-empt that by stating one thing or another as fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, the intro was voted on and accepted by a then majority. This is my reasoning for my support, even though it isn't perfect.  If you need me to dig the vote out of the Archives, please let me know.--ghost 03:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Past votes have no effect on current editors. This is a wiki. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand which question you think it begs. When a condition is something diagnosed by doctors, you are in it if they say you are in it. If the only demurral is from a discredited quack, it may be mentioned but it cannot be considered a rebuttal of the fact. Please see our policy on neutral point of view, which is clear about how minority views should be treated. Our article on Earth states as a fact that it is an oblate ellipsoid. That there are those who say it is not has not prevented us from stating that it is. There is a separate section on other views. This is as mandated in the NPOV policy. Hammesfahr's views are fully covered in this article. The only reason we say seven said X, one said Y is that it is a (clearly vain) attempt to prevent argument over the intro. I look at it like this: clearly, there was a dispute over Schiavo's condition, just as there is a dispute over, say, whether there is evolution by natural selection; however, we present evolution as fact in Wikipedia because this is the majority view, overwhelmingly supported by the facts; so we do the same with Schiavo's being in a PVS, as diagnosed; and we mention the dissent, as we do with evolution, although again, it doesn't make it to the intro. This intro, as I left it, gives more weight to the dissenting opinion than we generally do in articles. I feel that that's acceptable because so much was made of the dissent. However, it does not scrub out the fact of her being in PVS, any more than the dissent of creationists makes evolution not a fact. Grace Note 05:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * GraceNote, you talk that 7-1 language, as if you don't know of other doctors. Since you seem bolstered and supported by SlimVirgin's claim (and she may be correct) that you are not bound by concessus, let me assure you that you risk an edit war by bucking concessus: For example, if you insist on 7-1, then others will likely look at the edit I made a little bit ago in the intro bringing in four MORE neurologists besides those eight, and 3 of 4 agreed that Terri was not PVS. Do you see where this is going? I prefer the longer intro, but I can live with the shorter one -yet, you seem bent on it being unbalanced, no matter the size: Right before SlimV defended your right to edit, she criticized your assertion that Terri was really PVS. This was a finding of the court, yes, but only two people really know if Terri was PVS: Terri herself, and God Almighty. It is correct to say that you are neither of those, so your assertion is without merit. As much as I don't think Terri was PVS (according to my interpretation of Florida Law (remember my Habeas Corpus big court case which almost saved Terri's life), nonetheless, I would not state in a news article that Terri was unable to meet the definition of PVS. That sort of stuff belongs in advocacy and commentary, you know, opinion pieces, not news articles. I am a writer, and I write both news AND commentary on my website: I know the difference, and I trust my fellow editors here do too. We have choices: How shall you vote on the intro?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, Grace Note, I may be a dumb U.F.O. from another planet, but my edits are factual, balanced (that is no POV introduced by putting one side or the other exclusively and leaving out facts), and I source (or verify) my assertions & claims. I've made the edits justified. Take a close look before you tantalize the "Revert" mode. Maybe I AM dumber than a stump, but you'd better make durn sure before you revert, because in at least a FEW of my edits earlier this morning, I have the whole country crew behind me, both the liberals, AND the conservatives, plus a few independents. Now, on the other edits? I don't know, but I won't tell you which edits have less support for fear of being attacked behind my back when I'm not looking. I'm going to sleep and can't look, but I can sleep well. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 06:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Gordon. I removed the referrals to neurologists whose cite comes from prolifeblogs.com (or whatever it was).  Particularly as this is the first time they've appeared in the six months or so of this article being such a bitch. I think a fairly straightforward case could be made for their opinions not being neutral.  Additionally, I cut out the stuff trying to smear Cranford.  If Hammesfahr (who really is dubious, asccording to our resident expert, Neuroscientist) only gets a throwaway line talking about his credibility (or lack thereof), I can't see why we'd need an entire paragraph of conjecture about Cranford's percieved lack of ability due to one possible misdiagnosis in 1981. Proto t c 12:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Application of diagnosis—the "do-not-resuscitate" order
Could this heading be possibly shortened... makes things a little tight in 800x600. - RoyBoy 800 05:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet another intro rewrite
All right, this is getting silly. The unbending insistence on inserting doctors who questioned her diagnosis is failing to keep things in any sort of chronological order, and is failing to show any counterpoint or response to that dispute. Hammer diagnosed Terri to be MCS. Fine. put it in. But the court found his diagnosis lacked any credibility. Cheshire didn't EXAMINE terri, he VISITED her, and he did so a week before she died, not as part of the 2002 court case, so he needs to go IN ORDER, meaning, at the end of the intro. Also, you cannot put his dispute in without ANY context. He questioned the diagnosis, the Schindlers used his affidavit to file a motion in the court, and the court found their motion contained no new evidence to warrant an appeal. You cannot just put in Cheshire disputed the diagnosis, place it at the beggining of the intro to make it look like he was part of the 2002 court trial, and conveniently IGNORE any court response to his dispute. If you all INSIST on having Hammer and Cheshire, here's the rewrite that includes them, and also includes the court response to their views. THis is the best you're going to get.

-- Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to landmark court decisions, historic legislative initiatives, and intense media attention.

On February 25, 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: ʃaɪvoʊ) suffered severe brain damage from cerebral hypoxia, after experiencing cardiac arrest from an undetermined cause. She lapsed into a coma for two months and spent the last 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS). This diagnosis was disputed by Shiavo's parents and became the center of a court battle. Eight neurologists examined Schiavo. Seven neurologists diagnosed her to be in a PVS. Two guardians ad litem supported this diagnosis. One neurologist, Dr. William Hammesfahr, diagnosed Terri to be in a "minimally conscious state" (MCS). The court found Hammesfahr's diagnosis lacked credibilty (Hammesfahr's "vasolidation therapy" was not accepted in the medical community). The court ruled Shiavo to be in a PVS. This decision was appealed by Shiavo's parents. In every appeal, the courts ruled Schiavo was in a PVS. Schiavo's parents disputed many decisions made by her husband and legal guardian. They disputed guardianship, level of care, end of life wishes, life support, diagnosis as PVS versus MCS, level of consciousness, and even charges of physical abuse and neglect. Litigation went on for several years, and some issues reached the United States Supreme Court. The final decisions by the courts were that Shiavo was in a PVS and that she would not want to be kept on life support in her condition. The court ordered her gastric feeding tube removed. Appeals caused the feeding tube to be reinserted twice.

During the last few weeks of Shiavo's life, her parents took their case to the Governor of Florida, the United States Senate, and the President of the United States. This resulted in several legislative initiatives including Terri's Law, which were struck down by the courts. A week before she died, another neurologist, Dr. William P. Cheshire Jr., visited Shiavo and questioned the PVS diagnosis. Shiavo's parents filed a motion to the courts including an affidavit from Cheshire. The court found insufficient new evidence to appeal the ruling that Shiavo was PVS.

Shiavo's feeding tube was removed a third and final time on March 18, 2005. Schiavo died on March 31, 2005 at around 9:05 a.m. EST. An autopsy report was released on June 15, 2005.
 * The above appears to have been written at 14:21, 20 July 2005 by FuelWagon--GordonWattsDotCom 17:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

-
 * The current intro is much better. The only thing I'd question is adding that two guardians ad litem' supported the diagnosis. Did they have medical training, and were there others who didn't support it? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I mention them in the intro because they are appointed by the court to have Terri's best wishes at heart. It is their job to report any shenanigans on the part of anyone dealing with Terri. If they thought the doctors were biased, it would be their job to report it to the court. If they had reason to believe anyone was acting inappropriate, it would be their job to report it to the court. Blogs like to talk about a conspiracy of Michael and his hired doctors, and the guardian ad litems act as a witness that, from their point of view, nothing inappropriate happened around Michael, the various doctors, etc. FuelWagon 19:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't think they were doctors. One was a lawyer, I'm pretty sure. They were all appointed by the court. There were no guardian ad litems that I know of that disputed the PVS diagnosis. One of them mentioned that Michael had a conflict of interest around inheriting Terri's money, but even he supported the PVS diagnosis. He recommended the court decide what Terri's end of life wishes would be, rather than allow Michael to decide. That court case found that Terri would not want ot have been kept on life support, based on testimony from 18 witnesses. FuelWagon 19:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is certainly in the spirit of the compromise that was originally reached, and seems to do a good job of balencing the Points of View. It's unfortunate that we can't seem to agree on a more concise, less hedged version, as this puts the onus on the reader.  However, the "hook" seems strong enough to encourage them to brave a 19page article.  Good job.--ghost 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. FuelWagon 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining about the guardians ad litem, FW. I probably wouldn't mention them myself only because, without medical training, they wouldn't be able to judge the diagnosis, though what you say about vouching for no shenanigans is important. But that was my only concern and it's a minor one. Otherwise it's a very good intro. Thank you for writing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the anon's change of the intro (I noticed after reverting and checking the contribs that it's Grace Note not logged in), which he had changed to "passed into a condition diagnosed as PVS" to "passed into PVS."  Grace Note, your argument on the mediation page is that "if you are 'diagnosed as' in a PVS, then you are in it. It's a medical term for the condition you are supposed to be in, not a description of a pathological condition." You seem to be arguing that a clinical diagnosis can never be wrong: that a clinical diagnosis becomes a fact as a matter of definition, which I think you'd need to argue further for. I can see what you're saying, but it takes no account of clinicians' definitions being inappropriately applied.

You also compare the Hammesfahr position to creationism or flat-earthism, but the analogies don't hold. There aren't only seven scientists who believe in theories of evolution. One out of eight scientists isn't a creationist. The numbers here are such that the minority position isn't a tiny-minority one.

Your position on this page seems to be the opposite of what it was at Human. There, I argued (at first) that religious views should not be included in the introduction, because I wanted only demonstrable facts in there (we are bipedal primates, opposable thumbs, complex societies etc). You argued, as I recall, that the belief that humans had souls had to be in the intro because it's a widespread belief, true or false.

We're dealing with a similar case here, except an easier one, in my view, because the minority belief comes from a Board-certified neurologist (you think he shouldn't be, but he is), whereas at Human, the belief in souls didn't come from scholarly, published sources, but from an understanding of what many ordinary people base their lives on. Yet I don't think you'd support us adding here, in the intro, what the majority of ordinary Americans believed about Schiavo.

I think FuelWagon has done a good job balancing all the pertinent facts with the need to emphasize the majority position. If it keeps getting changed to favor the majority position too much, all that will happen is that anons and new users will keep changing it back, and it will never stabilize. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * "The numbers here are such that the minority position isn't a tiny-minority one." SlimVirgin, you may be right that it is a minority position, but then again, you may be more correct when you imply above that the"intro, [containing] what the majority of ordinary Americans believed about Schiavo," is also the same view held by Terri's parents. I would like to take issue with the suggestion that this view is the minority (because it is "too close to call"), and point out that many more neurologists than just Hammesfahr concurred with the "not PVS" diagnosis, as I've stated before. In fact, when I put the additional neurologists in the intro, and sourced them, my (apparently) pro-life colleague, Proto, deferred to the other side, and removed my edit, claiming that the source I provided was unreliable or biased or something along those lines. (I'd provided a Terri's Blog or something as my source.) Well, OK, maybe I could do better. Let's see. Oh, thank you for reminding me of the oversight here, but you may be wrong in implying to GraceNote that the parents' view is a minority view: It may or may not be. We have conflicting polls on that issue.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon, all your disputing claims are third-person removed. These people had no direct relationship with Terri and the only knowledge they had about Terri is limited to what the Schindlers presented to them in video, what they saw on a cat scan, or what they saw in the news. The intro should focus on Terri herself, her story, and the people who directly interacted with her. The opinions of third parties and public opinino polls can be mentioned in the article body and they even have their own sub-article. But I think if you insist on listing every individual who never even met Terri but disputed her diagnosis as PVS, then we'll have to list every individual who never met Terri but believed she was PVS, and the intro will become useless. Leave the public opinion stuff for the body of the article and its own separate article. Let this article focus on Terri's story, not what everyone thought of her story. FuelWagon 18:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * FW, about your reference at the end to the autopsy report, I'd say either leave that out of the intro, or add that the report also stated it could not confirm the diagnosis. While what you say (that its findings were consistent with the diagnosis) is true, it leaves the impression that the accuracy of the diagnosis may have been confirmed, which it wasn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave it a shot. I think I got the wording right. Neuroscientist could get it spot on, but he seems to have disappeared. FuelWagon 23:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I may not haven MD or a PhD, but my double major in biological sciences qualifies me to say that your edit about the role of the autopsey was correct, and it looks unbiased, or NPOV too. Plus, I made a minor edit; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you did a good job, FW. I added a link to the autopsy and changed "make" a diagnosis to "confirm." The intro's pretty good now, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the introduction is much better now. I would still prefer to keep it short, so I would leave out the seven neurologists and Hammesfahr and Cheshire.  (Note that I do not say that I'd leave out just Hammesfahr and Cheshire;  if the seven PVS diagnosers are there, I think they should be there also.)  I'd also leave out the guardians ad litem, and leave them for the main part of the article - just to make the introduction shorter.


 * One minor quibble - the tube was taken out, then Cheshire visited, then she died. In the current version, Cheshire's visit is mentioned before the tube removal.  If Cheshire is omitted, then that problem ceases to exist, but I think that could only be done if the wording is left as a short and simple "diagnosed as", without elaboration.  (All these things are reported in the main body anyway.)  Otherwise, maybe we could report on Cheshire's visit, then move straight on to her death, saying that she died on 31 March, thirteen days after her feeding tube had been removed for the third and final time.  Ann Heneghan 00:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a chronoligically disambiguity edit to address your concern. While my more recent edits were contriversial (but true) lengthening of the intro, this edit would not lengthen the intro except for a small "13 days" phrase to add disambuis language about the time-flow.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm now wondering if the "week before she died" really is correct. I've just had another brief look at Cheshire's affidavit.  (Very brief, because I'm on my way down to breakfast!)  It's dated 23 March.  He says he "was called on March 1, 2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa Marie Schiavo."  He doesn't say (unless I missed it in my haste) what date he actually saw her on, so I'd assume that he saw her on 1 March.  I'll have another look at the affidavit later.  Ann Heneghan 08:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Searching... Answers.com quotes us here at Wikipedia as having stated that he saw he five days before she died. "In an affidavit submitted at the request of Florida Governor Jeb Bush on March 23, 2005, Dr. William Polk Cheshire, a renowned neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, stated that he had examined Terri Schiavo..." from NewsMax.com means that at least one week had elapsed, maybe more, depending on how long before the affidafit was submitted.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unindenting and update: The affidafit, at the very end, says that Cheshire at the time of the writing of the affidavit, had been without food and water for five days. The affidafit was dated the twenty-third (23rd), and that is consistant with 18 + 5 = 23. So, he wrote the affidafit one week before she died, and would have had to have seen her at least one week before she died, and maybe more.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitive answer: "Cheshire visited Schiavo on March 14 but did not conduct a medical examination." from cache of StPete Times article of March 24, tells when, however, this does not exclude the possibility that he visited her after that. However, I think Cheshire only visited Terri once, and this would be it.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going to all that trouble and for correcting the article, Gordon. Ann Heneghan 09:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No problemo. Just, if you could, please check to make sure the style and readability is correct. I only added a little bit. I have jumped into some very controversial topics both here at http://en.WikiPedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GordonWattsDotCom and over at http://en.WikiQUOTE.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GordonWattsDotCom but feel overworked while I am on dial up and not being paid an hourly fee and between jobs (making me think about getting a job as in times past -time to stop saving Terri Schiavo and start saving Gordon Watts). So, if your University somehow subsidizes you financially, and I take a VERY long wiki-vacation, and you feel adventurous, you might jump right in and try to keep an eye on thing. Well, it's 6:05 am here in Eastern Standard Time, about four hours behind Universal (UTC) that is time stamped, and I'm at the end of my "free day." While I don't formally work, I do run errand for my father and go online to be a peacemaker, chiefly on my "day off," which is the Jewish Sabbath. While I'm not Jewish nor 7th Day Adventist (I'm simply Christian), I like to rest on the Jewish Sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sundown), because it is both convenient and Biblical, but my "work day" is ending, and I must sleep. Between (1) lightening hitting my computer modems, and the (2) Internet Service Provider having problems (even after I got a good replacement modem that works sometimes), I have trouble getting online, and then, (3) if I "get a job," I'm sure I'll spend less time online, so, if I ever disappear quickly, I should tell all my online friends goodbye and farewell. Thank you for provoking a minor response from me so I would be able to clarify my possibly scarcity online. I shall try to drop by as time permits. Counting the problems I've had, above, I can safely say I got the 1-2-3- knockout punch when trying to go online. I wonder if someone's trying to tell me something -like maybe God saying "Get a job."?--GordonWattsDotCom 10:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Removal of sentence
I have removed a sentence about Dr. William Hammesfahr that he has disputed (via email to Jimbo). Please do not replace it without very careful sourcing and wording. There is likely to be more to follow on this. -- sannse (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

(note: I was logged out for this edit and didn't notice - my IP was 80.42.162.228 -- sannse (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC))

Minor edit
From wikipedia
 * Minor edits generally mean spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearrangement of text.

Gordon, I don't know if your last couple of edits qualify as minor, but when you look at them together, they don't. FuelWagon 14:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you added a link to Cheshire's affidavit. But there isn't a single link to any other neurologist, or their testimony, or the court decisions, in the intro. How's about we leave the details like that in the body of the article? FuelWagon 14:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * First, other then the link added, it appears that my edits were minor, because they changed the order to conform with what is chronologically correct. Maybe the Wikipedia definition needs to be changed. Uh, strike that: It looks OK so far. Since the Wikipedia quote above allows for minor rearrangement of text, I think that my "chronological rearrangement" qualifies. Second, the link was added to source (verify) the claim, not to introduce POV bias; it too conceivably could be considered minor, but my use of the "m" indicator is moot because gave an explanation in the edit summary, so you could come to your own conclusion. Lastly, the whole shmoe is moot because between what I added, how Ann corrected your edit, and the lack of action further, the matter seems to be fixed, except for the link. You may be right about mentioning it later in the article, so I will not make an issue of that: It can go both ways, and maybe "less is more."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Revert?
Someone has gone in and banged on his/her keyboard here and there throughout the article and also edited height and weight information to be ridiculous.

I'm new to Wiki - any way we can revert it? It's going to be a lot of work clearing out each nonsense change the person did. --STufaro 16:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Never mind, someone's fixed it.--STufaro 16:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi STufaro! Welcome to Wikipedia.  I see you've noticed that the page has already been reverted.  See here for how to revert a page to a previous version.  Admins can do it quicker, because they have a special rollback tool.  Ann Heneghan 16:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

PVS, "diagnosed as", and NPOV dispute
I'd like to draw attention to the second last paragraph from the NPOV dispute article. I've put some parts in bold for emphasis:
 * The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and&mdash;this party is mistaken (see second example below)&mdash;that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact.  In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy.  Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.


 * Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts.  If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

I do not think it is appropriate to keep comparing the PVS disagreement to the flat earth theory. (This section is a result of Grace Note's recent attempts to remove "diagnosed as" from the article; but my flat earth comment is not directed at Grace Note in particular, as the Terri Schiavo talk page has had at least three contributors who referred frequently to "flat earthers" and "crackpots".) The percentage of people who believe that Terri was not in a PVS is far higher than the percentage of those who believe the earth is flat. As SlimVirgin said somewhere, this issue split America in half. And the questions about Dr Hammesfahr relate to his claims over a new therapy, NOT to his qualifications. If you had evidence that Hammersfahr was discovered to have cheated in his final exams, and had his medical degree revoked as a result, that would be different. (Though you'd still have to deal with Cheshire and with the fact that Michael Schiavo would not allow any of the neurogists who submitted affidavits to examine Terri.) However, Hammesfahr is qualified, he did pass his exams, and he is a board-certified neurologist. If he falsely claims to be more, it doesn't mean that he is less. Ann Heneghan 07:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The point that you ignore, Ann, is that PVS is not a thing that you catch, like measles say, but a thing doctors say you are in. It is simply not correct to say she was "diagnosed as" in a PVS, as though this were something different from being in one. The being diagnosed as in it is what being in it consists of. I am tired of arguing with you though. You don't listen; you simply push your POV regardless what anyone says. This kind of behaviour leads most of the contentious articles on WP to be unreadable, because the demands of POV pushers lead them to be written to satisfy those contending over the article rather than the reader. I will once more point out to you though that PVS is a clinical condition, not one that has a recognisable pathology (as the pathologist who examined Schiavo's brain made very clear), so that discernment of its existence is purely a matter of diagnosis.


 * Re Hammesfahr. Yes, he passed his exams. But again you choose to ignore the more salient issue that he's a laughing stock (the questions over him most certainly do not only concern his new "therapy", although the suggestion that his wishing to promote it impelled his intervention in this case is probably not far from the mark). Sources are required to be reputable. His repute is the thing that's in question. Behe has a degree too, you might note. I'll bet I can find someone who thinks the earth is flat who has some sort of qualification that ought to impel them to know better. Should we then mention the doubt in the intro to Earth?


 * How many people believe she was or wasn't in a PVS is entirely irrelevant. A majority of Americans also believe in biblical creation. However, our article on evolution does not suggest in its introduction that it is fraudulent. It's my belief that this article only suggests that Schiavo was "diagnosed" as being in a PVS because you want it to say so, not because you can support your contention in any way.


 * I do want to add though that the cynicism of the antichoice POV pushers astonishes me -- although perhaps it shouldn't. Schiavo was a desperately sick woman. The autopsy revealed that she had a severely damaged brain, which precluded anything resembling a recovery. But that doesn't prevent some from suggesting that with a bit of rehabilitation she would have been up and dancing a jig. The facts count for nothing with you. -- Grace Note


 * Excuse me, this issue split CNN and FOX in half. The media set the talking points of the debate in this day and age.  I've yet to see any really credible research on what ordinary people thought about the PVS diagnosis, and I wouldn't be interested in it if there were.  The proper response to an inane question like, "Do you think Terri Schiavo was correctly diagnosed with PVS" is, "How the hell should I know?  I'm not a doctor!" (unless you *are* a doctor, in which case you say, "How the hell should I know?  I wasn't there!")  In other words, just another puppet show put on for your amusement, nothing else to see here.  The statement of "diagnosed as" should remain in the article because it is literal fact; a statement that the diagnosis was disputed should also be included, since that is also literal fact.  Beyond those two facts, wikipedia should not go.  In particular, I think a possible solution would be a seperate "Terri Schiavo controversy" article for the claims and counter-claims, with the main article reserved solely for a completely factual account of Terri's life, diagnosis, and death.  I don't understand why people think it's the business of an encyclopedia to cover every grisly detail of every controversy.  Merely noting that a controversy exists is sufficient to establish NPOV.  Anything more than that is being generous, not an entitlement.  -Kasreyn


 * Well said. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been in favor of teh article saying "diagnosed" for months now. So we agree on that point. There are some other points that you said that I do disagree with, though. this issue split America in half Well, according to most polls, it split the country into thirds. One-third thought Terri was conscious and a conspiracy of doctors and judges and Michael wanted to euthanize her. Two-thirds thought Terri was PVS, that her husband should decide for her, that her feeding tube should be removed, and that the whole thing was a political campaign opportunity. questions about Dr Hammesfahr His credibility was zero in the eyes of the court, qualifications or no. His therapy wreaked of quackery and Greer could smell the stink. You cannot prop him up by pointing to his degree while ignoring all the other issues with his credibility. That is bias. you'd still have to deal with Cheshire You ignore the fact that the courts dealt with Cheshire, that his affidavit was submitted by the Schindlers and that the court found that his opinion was insufficient for a new trial, or to even reinsert the feeding tube to think about a new trial. The court dealt with Cheshire by dismissing his affidavit as irrelevant. The Schindler's strategy was simply to continue retrying the case until Terri died of other complications. They got their trial for her end of life wishes and lost. They got the trial to question the PVS diagnosis and lost. They then submitted motion after motion with affidavits from various people in the medical profession in an attempt to "do over". That isn't how the court system works. You don't get a "do over" unless you have sufficient new evidence. They didn't. Cheshire's affidavit and the affidavit of two dozen people who watched the 4.5 minutes of video the Schindlers edited was insufficient for a new trial. So, saying "you have to deal with Cheshire" is ignoring the fact that Cheshire's opinion was considered and found lacking by the courts. "Michael Schiavo would not allow any of the neurogists" This is complete POV fantasy. The guardian ad litems were assigned to make sure that Terri's best interests were taken care of. They all agreed with the PVS diagnosis. None of them reported any "shenanigans" from Michael preventing a doctor from examining Terri. 8 Neurologists examined her. 7 said she was PVS (some were her doctor before PVS was an issue. some were hired by michael for the court trial. some were appointed by the court). 1 said she was MCS, and the court found his diagnosis to be quackery. That Michael didn't allow every neurologist that the Schindlers brought to examine Terri simply shows he understood the Schindler's strategy. The Schindler's strategy was to delay and they would simply bring neurologist after neurologist, demanding that this time Terri will show herself to be MCS. No, she never did. And unless you claim that 7 neurologists failed to fulfill their medical obligations of giving Terri a proper diagnosis (saying she was PVS when she was really MCS), and unless you claim that that every single guardian ad litem dropped the ball and failed to detect this grand conspiracy (or were part of it), then you have nothing to support this irrelevant claim as anything other than a witchhunt, an accusation without a shred of evidence to support it. I support the idea that the article say she was "diagnosed" PVS, but I will not stand to let these wildly POV statements to go uncorrected. FuelWagon 15:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Greetings, all. (Sorry, work's been nuts and the cable's out.)  Ann, I'm also in agreement on the "diagnosed as" language.  Not because I agree with it, per se,  but because it is a statement of fact that editors can agree on.  Following that reasoning, can we handle several of these items in the same manner?
 * The issues split opinions in America and elsewhere... The fact that there are/were splits is not in debate. This also gives a good excuse to redirect to sub-articles.  Fractions and percentages as subjective.
 * Dr. Hammesfahr diagnosed (link)...This diagnosis, and Dr. Hammesfahr's creditials have been disputed. (link) And we don't have to look much further than Neuroscientist's discussion on the subject for why it's disputed.  I believe he provided links.  BTW, the whole Nobel issue is considered a worse infraction in scientific circles than creating on exams.  *Ghost pauses to reflect on the signifigance of this...*
 * Ouch. Just saw Talk:Terri Schiavo above.  For legal reasons we may need to become very careful.  Perhaps a solution is to limit any references to disputes over Dr. Hammesfahr's creditials be limited to links only. --ghost 23:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ...Cheshire testified (link)...The court ruled the tesitimony (link)...Supporters/detractors maintain (link). I'd personally like to see most of the Cheshire & Hammesfahr stuff moved to the sub-articles.  But let's iron it out first.
 * The whole Michael Schiavo would not allow any concept needs to be handled with extreme care. It's my (limited) understanding that the courts determined which medical professionals were allowed to examine Terri for the sole purpose of providing testimony.  If that's the case, Michael had no or little say in the matter.  We don't want to make accusations.
 * Same thing applies to the Schindler's strategy. Now, if we could back either of these accusations with documentation, great.  But then we should just state that there was an accusation(s), not repeat it.
 * The reason that agreeing on how to approach the diagnosis is significant is that, the agreement is a metaphor for how we should handle other items. It provides a template for presenting facts, while giving the minority the space to exist.  What are your thoughts?--ghost 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Grace Note, while I can agree with some of your politics, I feel in the strongest terms that Kasreyn raises valid points as to why "diagnosed as" needs to remain in the article. Not only is it a statement of fact, it has been agreed on in the past as a compromise, AND is more in accordance with NPOV.  I understand the frustration of simply wanting to represent what we understand to be facts, that others dispute.  But we cannot allow that frustration is prevent us from reaching any agreement.  If you'd like, feel free to put the subject to a vote again.  However, speaking for myself, I would vote in support of the compromise language.


 * Re: Dr. Hammesfahr, there are many editors and others that share your opinion. However, it appears that the article has attracted the attention of Dr. Hammesfahr.  In order to avoid litigation against the site, I recommend we remove all direct criticisms from the body of the article, and revert to links only.--ghost 14:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The sentence removed around Dr. Hammesfahr is here. It isn't critical of Hammesfahr in any way, it simply said that he had looked at the bone scans and said that Terri had been battered. I assume the removal was due to this being untrue, i.e. he had nothing to do with the bone scan and abuse charges. The current version says the Schindlers looked at the bone scan and said Terri was battered. We can report criticism if we report it as "so and so said". The court's response to H's PVS diagnosis is fairly clean cut. But the sentence removal appears to be due to a mistatement of facts, not unfair criticism. Which isn't to say we can be sloppy, but to say that criticism isnt the problem, bad facts are. FuelWagon 17:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless you've spoken directly to Hammesfahr about this, you don't in fact know what the problem is, and publishing defamatory material is problematic whether you quote someone or not. As Sannse said, and as any other experienced editor will tell you, we have to stick rigidly to Neutral point of view, No original research, and basic ideas of fairness. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't spoken with H. I think you miss my point. I was responding to ghost's post which seemed to be leaning toward removing any criticism from the article and link to outside sources only. I was simply saying that we can still report that "so and so said this" and back it up with a URL. We don't need to remove criticism out of fear, we just need to be accurate in our reporting. FuelWagon 18:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Slim, I understood that FW was responding to my comment. He and I fully understand what you're saying.  To reiterate, I'm suggesting that we take a defensive posture until Sannse is able to address the individual's concerns.  While our current version will hold up under scrutiny, I'm concerned with the damage that might be caused by litigation, or the threat of litigation.  (BTW, I'm a big Fair-Use advocate too...;-) )  I'll take FW's comments as a 'No' vote on my rather harsh suggestion.  Any others?--ghost 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

moving sections around
I moved a number of sections around from the "Michael Schiavo generic holding tank for random information" and attempted to put them into some sort of chronological order either within an existing section or creating a new section. I would like to see the entire Michael Shiavo section evaporate at some point, and move all teh remaining tidbits to the proper location within the full article. too tired at the moment. may work on it some more tomorrow. FuelWagon 05:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The Schindler section has now evaporated to it's various, more appropriate subsections. that's enough for tonight. FuelWagon 05:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wagon, does this removed text need to be in the article?
I see your edit here: your Revision as of 05:14, 28 July 2005. I did an edit->"find on page" for this text: " The Schindlers stated that, even if Schiavo had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not accede.   ," and I could not find it anywhere in the article.

In commenting on this, I take no position on whether the text needs to be in the article, and I'm not accusing you of deleting it without replacing it or anything. I am just giving you a heads up on this, in case you think it needs to be somewhere in the article.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is in this section. Apparently, this attitude came out during a guardianship challenge as part of the Schindler's testimony. Wolfson mentions it in his report, and I replaced the old text with a direct copy/paste from Wolfson's report. The word "accede" always bothered me. And I used Wolfson's words to keep it accurate. FuelWagon 13:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thx; I thought that I'd seen that sentence & that it looked like it said the same thing; Thanks for clarifying that and for paring it down so it said what was needed without repitition/duplication.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)