Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 2

What is this nonsense?

The article starts with POV diatribe by calling her husband "estranged." The next paragraph starts this way, "Michael Schiavo contends that she is in a vegetative state." That's not just Michael Schiavo who "contends" this. The doctors, and the court agreed on this, say that she is in continuous vegetative state. The article also has some information about one million dollar that Michael Schiavo supposedly will inherit, but that money is long gone in legal fees. Michael Schiavo lost money, not made "money" pursuing what he believes is his wife's wish. I think I will revert to Feb 19 version if this article stays in this POV state OneGuy 20:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right, "estranged" is too mild. It should say something like, "Her abusive bigamist husband, who has lived with a different common law wife for years..."

As for the "vegetative state" argument, anyone who can read plain English can see that she does not match the definition. The fact that a court ruled otherwise proves only the already-infamous dishonesty of Florida's activist judiciary. "The doctors" do NOT agree with it. Rather, Michael Schiavo's hand-picked euthanasia activist doctors agree with it. Most doctors who are familiar with her status do NOT believe it, and the family's doctors certainly disagree with it.

W/r/t the money:

1) It was awarded for Terri's care and rehabilitation but Michael refused to allow it to be used for that purpose. He has refused to allow ANY rehabilitative therapy for her, AT ALL. He wouldn't even pay for proper dental care for her -- and, as a result, she has lost five teeth due to dental neglect, while in his "care"[sic].

2)Instead of spending the money as it was intended to be spent, for HER, he spent much of the money on himself, and much more of it to fight to have her killed, presumably so that he could inherit the remainder.

3) Despite the vast sums of HER money that he has thus squandered, there STILL is no way to account for the entire amount. Michael claims the money is gone, but there's no evidence of that except for his word, and his word is no good -- after all, consider the cavalier disregard he has shown for his wedding vows.

Terri's family are the ones who've sacrificed. They have NO financial motive for this fight, unlike her estranged husband. NCdave 22:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right, this article has been hijacked by "pro-life" NPOV activists. I'm going to try to clean it up, but I fully expect it to be vandalised again in short order. Lankiveil 06:37, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Haha, very funny. The pro-euthanasia extremists keep deleting the accurate truthful information and substituting lies, or nothing at all. What do you call deleting 24 reference links, if not vandalism? NCdave 06:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lankiveil, after your inflamatory first comment here, I was expecting you to butcher it. But I was surprised to see that most of your initial edits (and MichelleG's, too) are actually pretty reasonable. So I thank you.

However, you wrote "how can he be 'estranged' when one party is brain-dead?" in your comments, and you deleted the word "estranged." The answers are:

1) She is not brain dead. Don't take my word for it, check the definition. Brain dead is truly dead, and nobody every wakes up or responds to therapy or even breaths on his own when brain dead. Not even Michael Schiavo has suggested that Terri is brain-dead. "Brain dead" is different from a coma or a vegetative State. People sometimes recover from a coma or a vegetative state, but they NEVER recover from brain death.

2) I think, perhaps, that you are just confused about the definition of the word "estranged." Well, here it is: dictionary.cambridge.org

estranged. adjective. 1 describes a husband or wife who is not now living with the person they are married to: his estranged wife

2 If you are estranged from your family or friends then you have seriously argued with them and are no longer friendly with them

separated. 2 [C or U] an arrangement, often legal, by which two married people stop living together as husband and wife: Couples may agree to divorce each other after a separation. They're considering separation as an option.

(now you can decide which fits. For me, 'estranged' describes Mr Schiavo and Terri's family)

Now, don't you agree that "estranged" is exactly the right word to use for a man who has lived with another woman for more than a decade, and has two children by her? We could add adulterous, but that, while accurate, seems unnecessarily judgmental. The purpose is descriptive: it is important to qualify "husband" so that readers don't wrongly picture the normal sort of husband (who lives with his wife), which he certainly is not.

NCdave 07:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected, although in my culture, "estranged" has a slightly different colour - it infers that both parties are in active opposition to each other. Terri Schiavo, quite obviously, is not capable of being in active opposition to anything at all.

Given your comments, I'm willing to work with you to bring this article to an acceptable standard, but the version that you are trying to push is quite clearly the work of a POV activist.

Lankiveil 04:20, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC).

Thank you for conceding that, Lankiveil. -NCdave

Don't even give him that. If you look in the OED (not a learner's dictionary), you'll find "1. In various senses of the verb. Now chiefly: Alienated in feeling or affection. Of manner, look, etc.: Indicating estrangement." The word "estranged" has an obvious POV connotation. I don't like arguing from dictionaries, but I will if I have to correct someone. It is appropriate to say that pro-life activists frequently claim Michael Schiavo is estranged, but it is not appropriate to simply state that he is estranged. Nearly all people who use this word in reference to the Schiavo case are pro-life activists. Rhobite 05:05, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not. I reject the assertion that because this is happening in the USA, regional variations common to that area apply - simply because this case is attracting a lot of international interest. Upon some further investigation, I have come to be under the impression that Americans can use the word under either circumstances. For this reason, I think the word "estranged" should go, simply because it's confusing and possibly inaccurate. Lankiveil 07:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC).

Wrong. The adjective "estranged" can be applied to various words, but here in the USA (where this case is), when applied to the word "husband" or "wife," it does not mean that the husband and wife are in active opposition to one another. It is a simple descriptive term implying separation, which can be due to either alienation or indifference. Anyone who has moved away from his wife, and moved in with another woman, with whom he is having children, is, by definition, and beyond argument, "estranged" from his wife.

You seem to have missed the point. The word "estranged" doesn't mean that here in South Africa, and its use is misleading. The word means exactly as Rhobite and Lankiveil say, and I've never ever in my life heard it used differently until I first read this article. MichelleG 13:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

It is POV nonsense to say that "pro-life activists claim they are estranged," because that falsely implies that it is a matter of opinion. It isn't. It is an undisputable FACT that they are estranged.

Partisans for Michael Schiavo's POV want to just call him her "husband," and let readers assume that he acts like one, and hide the fact that he no longer treats her as a wife, having replaced her with another woman a decade ago. So they keep deleting those facts from the article -- plain vandalism.

Nobody is saying that you can't say that they're apart, we're just saying that the word "estranged" is confusing and misleading. Using your logic and definition, my grandparents are an estranged couple, given that one of them is dead. It is quite obviously not the case that they're estranged though. Try to find a better word that describes the situation concisely, with no room for misunderstandings. MichelleG 13:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Great. Now Preisler is even reverting my Talk page comments. This is what he deleted: NCdave 18:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that! Wasn't aware of it but must have inserted my own comment into an earlier revision. I'm not so stupid that I would delete a comment on purpose when everyone can see the earlier revisions. But it's nice to see that you assume good faith Preisler 22:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Estranged does not refer to a situation in which one spouse is dead. It refers to the situation in which they are living apart. In fact, Michael Schiavo has been living with (and fathering children with) another woman for aproximately 10 years (not his first post-Terri girlfriend, btw). Plus, there is considerable evidence that he was physically abusing her prior to her injury.[1][2][3] Plus, there is overwhelming evidence that he abused her even in the first few years after her injury.[4] [5] Moreover, in the weeks prior to Terri's injury, according to the testimony of two different witnesses, Terri had said that she intended to divorce him.[6][7] That's estranged, probably even by S. African standards. NCdave 00:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, they delete annecdotes that prove his utter disdain for Terri's wishes, such as his callous refusal to permit her to receive Holy Communion when she was dying by starvation, and his opposition to letting her get treated with antibiotics for a painful UTI, and all the teeth she's lost due to dental neglect. The problem is that he CLAIMS he's trying to have her killed out of respect for her wishes, but that claim looks rediculous to people who know about the many ways in which he has proved he cares nothing for her wishes. So partisans for Michael Schiavo's POV delete that information, too -- more vandalism.

NCdave 06:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, after Terri's injury, Michael had her beloved cats euthanized. Does anybody think he was "just trying to do what she would want" when he did that? The man obviously doesn't care at all what she would want. NCdave 18:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Judge George Greer

Here's a something[8] (a short excerpt from a thought-provoking article) for you to ponder, if you think that Michael Schiavo is right and Terri's family is wrong:

It's not as if court after court has heard testimony on Terri's wishes and have all unanimously agreed that Terri would have chosen death. One lone Florida circuit court judge, George Greer, credited Michael's testimony, finding "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri said she would not want to be kept alive on feeding tubes. Because Judge Greer was acting as the finder of fact, his finding is essentially unreviewable by any other court. ...

Judge Greer's finding on Terri's wishes may be immune from legal review, but it's not immune from criticism. He's a finder of fact he's not God. A few years ago, Judge Greer found that Helene Ball McGee did not have reasonable cause to believe domestic violence was imminent and denied her an order of protection. Two weeks later, Mrs. McGee was stabbed to death by her husband. So judges can make mistakes.

Judge Greer's pivotal "finding of fact" in the Schiavo case determining a life-or-death issue is based on something Terri allegedly said after watching a TV show. Michael didn't know his wife was bulimic, but he distinctly remembered Terri's remarks about a TV show...

As even the New York Times admits, Michael did not recall Terri's clearly stated desire to be taken off life support until after the million-dollar settlement was paid, most of it going for Terri's medical costs - and the remainder to her husband.

Think about that, folks. And consider the list of medical experts who disagree with Judge Greer's decision, and have testified that Terri Schiavo could improve with therapy:

Dr. William Hammesfahr

Dr. Alexander Gimon

Dr. Jacob Greene

Dr. Richard Neubauer

Dr. William Russell

Dr. Jay Carpenter

Dr. James Avery

Dr. John D. Young

Dr. William Maxfield

Sarah Green Mele - Speech Pathologist

Myra Stinson - Speech Pathologist

Also, think about the list of organizations who filed or joined in Amici Curiae briefs in Terri's defense:

Center for Human Life and Bioethics at the Family Research Council, Not Dead Yet, Adapt, The ARC of the United States, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University, Center on Self Determination, Disability Rights Center, Freedom Clearinghouse, Hospice Patients' Alliance, Mouth Magazine, National Council on Independent Living, National Disabled Students Union, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered, Society for Disability Studies, TASH, World Association of Persons With Disabilities and World Institute on Disability, Academy of Florida Elder Law Attorneys, Inc., the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, plus 55 Bioethicists.

Are you SURE they are ALL wrong? All those doctors, AND all those highly respected organizations, AND the Florida House & Senate & Governor, are ALL wrong, and Judge George Greer is right?

What do you suppose Helene Ball McGee's family would say?

NCdave 06:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hammesfahr is NOT a "world-renowned neurologist", except perhaps on his own website.

He is classified as an alternative practitioner under Florida Law, which limits oversight of his medical claims.

In their disciplinary action against him in early 2003, the medical board noted his clinical techniques were "experimental." They took action against him for financially exploiting a patient, and sought to immediately place him on probation under the supervision of another physician. It took him over a year before he cleared his license.

There is no independently verifyable evidence to support his medical claims. In fact, they run contrary to current neurological knowledge. [9]

Particularly disturbing is his claim to be a Nobel Prize nominee.

The nomination he cites is invalid; valid nominations are kept confidential for 50 years.

Both the trial and appellate courts noted that in rejecting his opinion as "anecdotal", and not medically credible.

Dr. Maxfield was the other doctor to testify on the parents' behalf at trial.

However, Maxfield is a radiologist with no board certification in neurology.

Most of the other doctors cited are not neurologists either, so their credibility in discussing neurology is severely limited.

For example, Neubauer is one of Florida's leading providers of hyperbaric therapy.

His affidavit reads like an advertisement for his clinic. There is no support in independent, peer-reviewed medical literature for the use of hyperbaric therapy in the treatment of brain injury.

Most of the newest affidavits indicate their opinions are based on nothing more than the 4 minutes of video excerpts posted online. The videotape is over 4 hours.

--Bill 03:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding off-topic comments here. Wikipedia is not a debate site. Clearly this is an emotional subject for you, so perhaps you'd be better off discussing this case elsewhere on the Internet. The sole purpose of this talk page is to coordinate efforts to improve the article - not to convince people of your opinion. Rhobite 07:41, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

It is not off-topic. People keep claiming here that Terri is "brain dead" or "in a coma" or "a vegetable" or even just plain "dead." She isn't. That's not POV, that's just fact. She IS very severely brain-damaged. But that doesn't mean she is the same as dead, or that she can't be helped.

The argument is over whether Terri is a living human being, or a "vegetable." Many here wrongly think she has the IQ of a carrot stick. So they think that anyone who wants to prevent her death is crazy -- and SOME of those people keep vandalizing the wikipedia article, and deleting the information that doesn't match their prejudices, presumably to promote Michael Schiavo's "side" of the legal fight.

My hope is that if those people read this discussion their hearts might soften a bit, enought that they might cease vandalizing the article. (By vandalism, I don't mean all changes, I mean blatant things like deleting >75% of the reference links.)

NCdave 08:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First off, you really need to read Wikipedia:Vandalism. You are using that word liberally when it clearly doesn't apply. "Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." Many editors view frivolous accusations of vandalism as a personal attack. Frivolous accusations won't win you any friends around here. Almost all the links you added express a certain pro-life POV. Many of the links are redundant, and some of the link descriptions you used were unacceptably biased ("pro-death"). I don't fault anyone for trimming the redundant opinionated links. -Rhobite

That is factually untrue. The links I added are mostly important, accurate, in-depth investigative journalism. They are not redundant. And I did not add any biased link descrptions (I never labeled a link "pro-death" -- you just made that up). -NCdave

Second, please stop trying to turn this into a debate. That's not what most people are here for. Please don't presume to know what other editors think about Terri Schiavo. You make your views clear enough; others may choose to set their personal views aside and work to make this article neutral, instead of using it as some sort of battleground. All this talk of the IQ of carrots and heart-softening is meaningless. It has nothing to do with the content of this article. It's a fallacious debate tactic. Please stop. Rhobite 08:31, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, your attempts to make the article misleading (e.g., by deleting the facts about Michael & Terri's marital status), are POV vandalism, deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity and accuracy of the article. Please stop it. NCdave 20:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in a discussion with someone who insists on turning this into a political debate and resorting to accusations of vandalism. I'm happy to work towards a compromise with you on the condition that you stop insulting me. Rhobite 23:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Once again the supporters of finishing off poor Terri have vandalized the article, deleting most of the references, and deleting all information about Terri & Michael's marital estrangement (among other things). All the information they deleted is factual and important to understanding the case.

(BTW, please put any discussion of the estrangement definition/issue above, where I posted the dictionary definition.)

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that people with such hard hearts that they want to bump off a harmless handicapped woman, also are not above trashing an article to promote their POV. But I am still disappointed.

I've repaired it (and made a few other minor repairs, for grammer, wording, balance, etc.). NCdave 04:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe you mean "Grammar." And, NCdave, please don't accuse us WikiPedians who would prefer to see a neutral article put online of having "hard hearts." WikiPedia is no place for partisan and ideological squabbling... it is a place for the sharing of knowledge and information. Please note I use the words knowledge and information, and not opinion and inference. I admit I have been guilty of some inference in my own writing here, but through the gracious help and editing of my fellow WikiPedians I (and all of us) are forming a better encyclopedia for the world. I hope you can come to your senses and help us by stopping your campaign of buggering vandalism. JnB987 05:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you got me. I corrected grammar, not spelling.  :-/

I certainly agree that a Wikipedia article is no place for partisan and ideological squabbling, but should be a place for the sharing of knowledge and information. That's why I never delete correct, truthful, information.

I am striving to make this a NPOV factual article, but supporters of Michael Schiavo's POV keep slanting the language and censoring the information to support Michael's POV. That is just wrong. The "buggering vandalism" is not mine, it is being done (over and over) by the Michael Schiavo partisans who keep deleting information from the article.

However, I don't see how anyone who wants so badly to see Terri die that they will delete huge chunks of information from an encyclopedia article, because that information refutes their POV, can be anything but very, very hard-hearted.

NCdave 06:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Will everyone please stop accusing everyone else of vandalism? I'm not vandalizing. Lankiveil is not vandalizing. Although I disagree with his edits, I won't accuse NCdave of vandalism. Rhobite 05:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. How about will everyone please just tell the truth.

Rhobite, you accused me of creating "link descriptions you used were unacceptably biased ('pro-death')" - which is just as false as accusing me of vandalism. I never put such a description on any link. The thing that is wrong with calling me a vandal is that it is a false accusation, not that it is an impolite accusation.

Lankiveil has just deleted most of the reference links, and substantial amounts of other information. I think he's the third supporter of Michael Schiavo's POV to delete most of the reference links in the last day or so. How can that be considerered anything other than vandalism? Calling that "vandalism" is a TRUE accusation.

Only supporters of Michael Schiavo's POV have been doing that. I have not (and would not) do anything like that.

Yet, even while doing their deletions of sometimes-massive amounts of information from the article, to promote their POV, Michael Schiavo's supporters have the gall to accuse ME of "vandalism." Their hypocrisy and chutzpah is astounding.

If you don't think there's adaquate information in the reference links, then add whatever you think it lacks. But don't just delete information because it doesn't support your POV. If there is an error, then correct it. If you think something's an error, but you know someone else thinks differently, then support your change with references, and/or explain your view on the discussion page.

How can deleting dozens of relevant links and references be considered anything except vandalism?

As for me, I have NOT deleted ANY factual information, neither in the references nor elsewhere in the article. I've ADDED factual information. I've corrected proven errors of fact, both my own and those of others (including, in one case, a correction that supported the Michael Schiavo POV to a modest extent). I've balanced and moderated POV-heavy rhetoric. I've added links with supporting information.

My passion is TRUTH and ACCURACY. The thing I hate most is lies, and the thing I hate second-most is errors. I cannot abide misleading "encyclopedia" information.

NCdave 06:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK two things are happening here. One, you're assuming that it's OK to add redundant, opinionated links. Maybe it's not! It's not like these links have been here forever- you added them yesterday. Maybe the fact that three people have removed these links should indicate to you that there is some problem with them.

Two, you're making a great assumption there that everyone else is a "supporter of Michael Schiavo's POV". Rhobite 07:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

The reason that I canned your links is because many of them are redundant, low-quality stuff, that is simply the same old things repeating and repeating. There is no need to provide links to twenty articles all voicing the same opinion. Links that were of high quality, or links that provided information not found elsewhere, were retained. Also, I'm going to see if I can find some opposing sources later tonight, to balance out the references section. Lankiveil 07:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC).

Nonsense. They are non-redundant, high-quality stuff. The Wesley Smith series, for example, is the single most comprehensive and in-depth collection of third-party investigative articles on this topic that I have found, anywhere. Either you didn't read them, Lankiveil, and just condemned them based on prejudice, or, worse, you deleted them BECAUSE they are high-quality and highly informative, and retaining them would detract from the severe anti-Terri POV bias of this article. NCdave 18:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)