Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Pain and Removal

Unless you are Terri Schiavo, and you want to share how it feels to starve to death, I think this reference to this sort of death being a bliss-filled walk in the park does not belong in an impartial article. I see enough pleas for money to "starving third-world countries" that I'm left feeling that starvation is probably not as great as many are being told in the Schiavo case. When I brought this up to my father and brother (both M.D.s), their answer essentially was that (1)evidence generally points to the PROBABILITY (not fact) that this is a RELATIVELY (not completely!) more comfortable death than others, and (2) hearing this usually makes the families feel better in making a difficult decision; there's no need to "add to their burden" by making it clear that no one can tell you for sure what starving to death feels like. The inferences of levels of pain and discomfort, when it comes down to it, are only educated guesses based upon physiology, and not known fact; in short, if you decide to starve yourself to death, YMMV. As much as it may distress families making a difficult decision, could we PLEASE make references to Terri starving to death more impartial and truthful?

Is there no one who feels that the information referring to the painfulness/painlessness of Ms Schiavo's death is incomplete? We need to contrast the terminal-patient data of Fine to Ms Schiavo, who suffers a completely different condition. Also, we need to incorporate the view of a person who ACTUALLY suffered brain damage and lay in a state similar to Schiavo's and describes the removal of nutrition as highly painful. Does no one support broadening the information? 70.57.139.181 09:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The situations are entirely different. Terri Schiavo is not going to recover, so whoever the person is that you are claiming describes it as painful did not have a completely liquified cerebral cortex. RickK 10:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, 70.57.139.181, I've added a sentence with a link to an article with the opposite POV, for balance:

However, other experts contend that is only true for patients who are already dying from other causes. For Terri, they say, death by dehydration would be torturous. [1]

Rick, that "completely liquified cerebral cortex" line from Felos has been completely discredited. He never even believed it, himself. That's why the hospice is using pain killers on her: [2]

• • That's an important point, so I added a line on it to the article... of course, it rather begs the question. If Terri has been put on morphine because she would have been suffering from starvation, then obviously she's not suffering now because, well, she's on morphine - which is pretty powerful stuff. When my grandmother was dying from spinal cancer a few years ago, she was put on morphine in her final weeks, and it worked a miracle for relieving the obvious pain from which she was suffering. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 01:59, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Take a look at the affidavit of the Florida DCF's neurologist, Dr. Cheshire, for an evaluation from a neutral party, not picked by either the Schindlers or M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer. NCdave 13:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Cheshire is not a neutral party. He was selected by Jeb Bush, who is strongly advocative of not pulling the plug. He admits that she shows no behaviors inexplicable by the conventional diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Why do you persist in these easily-refuted ravings? Iceberg3k 13:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Cheshire is not neutral because he was selected by Jeb, but Michael Schiavo, Felos, and the neurologist THEY selected ARE? Huh?!?!? There's impartiality on both sides. Add to that the fact that neither Cheshire or ANY other doctor is allowed to examine Terri (nor have any been for years) per Michael's decision, which he's empowered to decide, as guardian. The Schindlers have attempted to get second opinions and have been denied them each and every time. The pdfs of Greer's refusals are all housed at www.terrisfight.org

Who says that Cheshire was selected by Jeb, anyhow? He's a highly credentialed Mayo clinic neurologist, who was sent by the FL DCF. I've seen no evidence that Jeb Bush had anything to do with selecting who they sent. Do you have knowledge of that, Ice, or are you making accusations based on mere suspicion? NCdave 19:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"easily-refuted" is arguable, fine; but "ravings" is going too far, ColdGuy; let's try and keep things civil around here. Bill 16:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iceberg apparently didn't even bother to read the report. (Why do I bother to include links, anyhow?) Iceberg just made up that supposed admission. Dr. Cheshire wrote, "In summary, Terri Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and indicative of cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent vegetative state. Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state... [and] in my judgment it would be wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water." NCdave 22:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this: "Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90-minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of some things around her". For ninety minutes she failed to display any behavior that could modify the diagnosis of PVS, yet he modifies it anyway, only based on his personal preferences and a subjective "feeling." Iceberg3k 01:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cheshire never so much as examined her, he's only stood by her bed and looked at her. RickK 20:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Because he is not allowed to examine Terri by Michael, a decision upheld by Greer. This was not laxity on Cheshire's part (or any of the other doctors the Schindlers have consulted who were also forbidden my Michael to examine Terri), but adherence to court order. Greer's upholdings of Michael's right as guardian to deny access to second opinions by doctors selected by the Schindler's are all available at www.terrisfight.org

That's not relevant. For whatever reason he didn't examine Terri, he still didn't examine her. If he didn't examine her because the moon and planets weren't in the right alignment, doesn't mean his conjecture would be relevant. He didn't examine her, therefore, his fantasies are irrelevant, no matter the reason. Professor Ninja 00:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And Schiavo's handpicked doctors' fantasies are more relevant because of exactly why? Sounds like you're engaging in a little confirmation bias there. Schiavo's doctors have an agenda, the Schindler's doctors have an agenda. We have to consider both equally, unless their authority is explicitly disproven (e.g., their medical license is found to come from the University of Papaya). There should have been an impartial doctor in the mix at some point in time, but for whatever reason, Greer didn't feel that necessary.

Au contraire, NCDave. During the hearing in 2002, there were two doctors present selected by Mr. Schiavo, two present selected by the Schindlers (a pair of quacks, I might add, with one known to make fraudulent claims and the other speaking well outside of his specialty) and a fifth who was selected by the state for the purpose of impartiality and to break a tie in the decision making process. The state's doctor concurred with the diagnosis of Mr. Schiavo's doctors and the evidence presented by his side and as a result, Judge Greer then determined the diagnosis of PVS to be a finding of fact which could not be challenged. Iceberg3k 15:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write that. (But I agree with it.) Doesn't it bother you at all that the folks who want Terri to live have been clammering and pleading for the advanced tests that would prove the extent of her brain damage, but the folks who want Terri to die won't permit those tests? If they are so sure that Terri is in a PVS, why won't they permit the advanced diagnostic tests that could prove it, like fMRI and PET scan? NCdave 19:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me at all, because the damage is so vividly obvious on the extant tests that the only reason to demand additional tests is to keep her corpse alive a little bit longer and to attempt to throw doubt on the existing, extremely strong evidence. Additionally, surgery to remove the electrodes preventing an MRI would have the possibility of causing even more damage than already exists. When somebody has two holes the size of the Grand Canyon in their brain, and their brain tissue is at least an order of magnitude less dense than in a healthy brain, further tests will not reveal anything not already known. Iceberg3k 01:48, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised NCdave even mentioned a PET scan, which doesn't require the removal of the electrodes. It's normally not conducive to the Schindler "partisans", as he terms it, because they usually harp on about how an MRI can't be done because Michael won't order the electrodes removed. They conveniently forget to mention a PET scan can be done with the electrodes in. So kudos, I guess, for getting something right, NCdave. Professor Ninja 02:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So an impartial person will consider both parties' doctors' opinions as equally as possible, while recognising that Schiavo's people will probably support her death, and the Schindler's people will probably support her life. It is not so very unusual for a doctor to make inferences based upon an observation or interview, especially extended or multiple ones if the consult is behavioural/(and some)neurological. Cheshire is being skewered unfairly because he is a Christian (I'm not a Christian, and even I see it), because Jeb selected him, and because he is voicing an opinion favouring the Schindlers.

No, he's being skewered because he is lying. He admits in his affadavit that Mrs. Schiavo displays no behaviors which suggest cognitive ability, yet he believes that she is not in a persistent vegetative state because he is apparently a Jedi Knight and can feel her presence. Iceberg3k 15:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

If the public opinion were running in the other direction, you'd be posting here, criticising Schiavo's doctors' "fantasies" after only visiting Terri for a handful of minutes a month, claiming their "conjectures" weren't "relevant". There's fault to be found on both sides, you are not being objective in your language, and seem biased toward Schiavo's camp.

No, I think you're missing the point. The Schindler's doctor did not examine Terri Schiavo. The reason why does not matter. It does not matter that he was stopped from examining her. That does not make any fantastic observations he by not examining her true. It does not add weight to his opinion. That is what matters. And, as an aside, Terri was examined by impartial doctors multiple times, by Schindler selected doctors multiple times, and by Schiavo selected doctors multiple times. Only after the (repeated) rulings did the judge put his foot down and stop the damn spectacle because the Schindlers, in my lay opinion, were attempting to just keep her alive by constantly demanding new examinations. Professor Ninja 08:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed Talk Dupe

I just removed duplicate postings from this page. I don't think I erased anyone's comment, but appologies if I did, it wasn't intentional. --CVaneg 16:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just did it again --CVaneg 17:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

recent developments section a mess

They jump all around and are bloated - trying to read more like a news story than encyclopedia

It seems like it is trying to be a time line but then topics are by governmental branch.

It jumps from State to Federal to Individual to State.

In my mind it makes more sense to either have it be in a timeline format or group it by governmental branch:

Florida Courts
Florida Legislature
Florida Executive

US Courts
US Legislature
US Executive

Politicians
Pundits

Public Reaction
polls
monetary offers
living wills
etc

• That's true; it does read like a news story, and yes, absolutely, it would be very good to consolidate it into either of the two schemes you suggest. It's probably hopeless to try to do that now, though. We also do not have the distance from the subject that will be needed to assess the impact of Terri's case on American (a) law, (b) politics, and again, as much as such an assessment is warranted, it's probably pointless to try and provide one now. — Bill 17:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I concur with Bill. Once things cool down a bit, chances are this article will get pared down quite a bit, and (hopefully) the entire nature of the article will change a become a bit more encyclopedic. I'm pretty sure once we remove the commentary, punditry, and various accusations, the article will become much more managable. --CVaneg 17:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the comments. I have been using Wikipedia alot for information, but I am pretty new to adding my 2 cents to the different articles.

--Pescatoro 25 Mar 2005

It was in timeline order, but that wasn't clear. It would probably be best to make a timeline that lists all of the events chronologically, clearly. RickK 20:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was considering creating a Timeline of Terri Schiavo's case article, but wasn't sure. I'm fairly certain it's a good idea, but this page is getting bloated, so I would make it, obviously, seperate. Care to collaborate, RickK? Professor Ninja 00:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You want to take a first cut at it and I'll fill in? RickK 20:57, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll wikify when ready. Professor Ninja 06:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed additions

Dr. Lieberman's analysis should be included: http://www.theempirejournal.com/03200508_terri_schiavo.htm

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Reading the article she seems to say that she did not engage in any direct analysis of Michael Schiavo, instead relying on media reports and an interview with Robert Schindler. I hardly think this qualifies as a valid psychiatric opinion. --CVaneg 00:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My my... that's not even considering the fact that there's a whole good chunk of men (and women!) who fit the profile of an abuser to the letter... and are not. What a joke this whole affair has become. Professor Ninja 12:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And upon actually reading the article, all I can say is, Jesus. Is there nothing these people won't read into? He could just as easily have had Terri's jewelry fitted into a ring for himself to have something of hers always with him, for example. I know somebody (an aunt, after my uncle died) who did exactly that. What a chunk of biased nonsense. Professor Ninja 12:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you think he had Shanna and Tolly killed for sentimental reasons, too? (And please do not take the name of my Lord and Terri's in vain.) NCdave 19:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, I'll take what I please in vain, when I please it. Second, he could have had the cats euthanised for any number of reasons. Since you fancy the Lord so much, you ought to know man was given dominion over all life on earth, and that nothing but excessive cruelty or relation with animals is considered a sin. Perhaps you should remove the beam from your own eye before telling me to pluck the mote from mine, hypocrite. Also, the Pentateuch repeatedly forbids abuse to one's own body. Abuse to the body sort of like, I dunno, bulimia.Professor Ninja 00:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I Want To Live"; the latest (and probably last) Schindler filing: http://www.theempirejournal.com/Weller_I_Want_To_Live.pdf

Assuming the vocalization "Ah wa" had any meaning whatsoever and was not merely a random response to a stimulus, it could just as easily have been "I want to die" as "I want to live." Iceberg3k 00:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's assuming it even happened in the first place. If it did happen, and wasn't random, it could have just as easily been I want to die. First thing that struck me too. Professor Ninja 01:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True enough. Given the demonstrated low level of truthfulness indulged in by the witnesses for the Schindlers, I wouldn't put it past them to make up something like this to try to get a "stay of execution" as it were. Iceberg3k 01:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think you know that the Schindlers (and the four dozen or so neurologists who agree with them about Terri's condition) are not the ones who have been untruthful. According to the sworn testimony of multiple witnesses who have no stake in this fight, for more than two years after Terri's hospitalization Michael consistently maintained that he didn't know what care Terri would want. Then, when the medical malpractice settlement was awarded, and he stood to inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars upon her death, he suddenly "remembered" that she would rather be dead. Cummon, you have got to know that isn't credible. NCdave 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Several years passed between the two dates (the malpractice award was given in 1992, he didn't start trying to pull the plug until 1998, do the math, that's six years). Also, he did, in fact, undergo the university training to become an RN. The real issue here is not "disability rights" (and I find it highly ironic that those who are agitating for Terri Schiavo on the "life/disability rights" platform, generally, are those who have tried in the past rather consistently to make life harder on the disabled, by restricting their ability to access health care), but the dignity of the deceased. Nobody, when they die, I am fairly sure, wants their corpse to be appropriated by their relatives and turned into a sock puppet so the relatives can pretend that they're still alive. Iceberg3k 20:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

The Schindlers even concede, at maximum, Terri Shiavo has the mental capacity of a six month old. The whole allegation defies science. Phobophile 02:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you think it is okay to kill six month olds? NCdave 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And once again, the HMS Point has left the dock without NCdave hopping aboard. Nice attempt at smearing your opponent though. I'll illustrate what shouldn't need illustrating for those who may lack the capacity to see what Phobophile was getting at: The Schindlers concede Terri Schiavo has the mental capacity of six month old. Half-year-old infants do not make complex vocalizations like "I want to live"; it is beyond their capacity. Therefore, by the Schindler's own admission, she could not have possibly vocalized such a desire to live. That is on top of 1) if it even happened 2) if it did happen it wasn't random 3) if we decide to ignore that it could have just as easily been "I want to die." Professor Ninja 23:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bonus follow-up: No, but apparently your camp does. I refer you again to the mote, beam, and hypocrite statement. Professor Ninja 00:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • I think Terri may have been trying to say, "I want a cookie." If I had the mind of a six-month old, I'd definitely be thinking something along those lines. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 02:04, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Terri frequently demonstrated understanding of simple English sentences, by responding appropriately. She also demonstrates recognition of different people by consistently responding to different people in different ways (e.g., all observers agree that her mother is the person whose company she most enjoys). Most of the neurologists who have expressed an opinion have said either that they believe she is not in a PVS, or that more advanced testing (MRI, fMRI, PET scan) would be necessary to make that determination. However, M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer refused to permit those tests to ever be done [3]. NCdave 19:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. And no. And no again, most say she is PVS, you have MRI listed twice, fMRI is a specialised form of MRI, it's as sensical as saying she drives a Dodge or a Ram. And so what? That's his choice. If I had enough tests to show my wife was in PVS I'd do whatever I could to keep her from being prostituted into a spectacle so I could achieve life extension through delay tactics too. And, of course, op-eds prove everything. (Opinion being the synonym of "fact" that it is) Professor Ninja 03:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)