Jump to content

Talk:Terri Schiavo case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silverback (talk | contribs) at 06:22, 31 August 2005 (→That controversial, self-promoting flake). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

 For those who have agreed to Mediation, there is an enclave set aside for your use at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation.

The archives for the Terri Schiavo page may be found here:

archived

Things seem to have settled out a bit. I decided to push everything into archive 32. FuelWagon 15:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Fine Article

After all the hard work, screaming and scratching, you all have produced a fine, factual page. Everyone deserves a barnstar, IMHO Paul, in Saudi 18:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. Does wikipedia have "article" barnstars the way the military has "theatre medals"? Then I can say "I served on teh Terri Shiavo war". ;) FuelWagon 20:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for recognizing all of our hard work and giving ALL one million of us barnstars. You da man!--GordonWattsDotCom 01:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't a million. I just went through and gave all the old-timers a star. FuelWagon 01:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I remember that, despite my disagreements with Neutrality over "Euthanizing" a certain E-word in the intro, he had a good idea a while back about suggesting that the Terri article be nominated for a featured article. I'm not much into jumping up and down and investing much more time (due the the unstable nature of wiki articles), but I do think that his idea is a good one. Would someone like to suggest that it be nominated? Would that be done at, say, the Village Pump?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert: Firestorm at FAc - need your help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

Firesorm here. Need help.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and fixed some of the biggest presentation problems, but the FAC still contains a lot of significant unresolved issues. The biggest is the structural organization of this article is terrible. (Consider - If the evolution article were written the same way as this article is, it would be 950 kilobytes long and the TOC would have 150 listings). →Raul654 17:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
OK, Mark, I've reviewed and tweaked all of your edits. After all of the fuss over the lack (or deficit) of a sufficient number of sub-articles, I don't see why you wanted to remove the sub-article box present. Plus, after all the fuss over "article length," I don't see why you like all that white space between the table of contents (left side) and the photo. I fixed both of those. I prefer the Table of contents RIGHT -as Jesus has, but I am flexible and am OK with your preference to put it on the left side. I appreciate your interest and knowledge on the issue, but please make sure your contributions don't remove positive elements and "make the natives restless."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made additional comments on your talk page.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

featured article comparisons

the Dred Scott v. Sandford article is a featured article. And it sort of has the same feeling as the Terri Schiavo history: a long legal battle all the way to the supreme court. but obviously, it happened a long time before TV and the web was invented, so I'm sure there are details of the case that didn't make it into the Dred Scott article. Everythign about Terri Schiavo is pushed to the web for immediate dissemination and so some editors push to have that included in the article. Anyway, does anyone have any articles that cover a topic as contentious as the Terri Schiavo situation so we have something to compare to? FuelWagon 14:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a featured article. →Raul654 17:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I'd say not nearly as contentious given the spectrum of beliefs/acceptance of evolution one could have, Terri is more equivalent to Abortion in my estimation. - RoyBoy 800 05:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible improvements

Due to intermittent internet access, I fear I cannot be of much assistance in snipping the article down to proper size for a featured article. I very much want the current nomination to succeed, however, so I thought I'd provide a bullet-point list of the remaining things I would fix, given the chance (this also provides an opportunity to discuss the changes, as some of them might be controversial).

  • Compress the overview enough to fit into the lead section. It's no good to have two different introductions, one long and one short.
  • The small sections (one to four paragraphs long) might be more logically combined into one section, and the material trimmed from them, offloaded into the subarticle for the section they are combined under.
  • The PVS and the Law section might make a useful article of its own, and a wikilink could be used to link the two articles together.
  • The fourth paragraph of the Another Guardianship Challenge could have its long quote summarised into one or two sentences, with the full quote being placed elsewhere or on Wikiquote.
  • In the fifth paragraph of the same section, it might be logical to omit the date and place where Michael made his comment (every little bit counts; I've learned that from having to summarise articles like Mozilla Firefox).
  • The Wolfson Report, if combined with some other small sections into its own section, could have the full quotes placed in a subarticle, and have the contents of the report summarised into one paragraph instead of the six paragraphs of quotes as it is now.
  • The detailed description of the grave marker could be placed in a subarticle.

These are just some brief suggestions I thought of after skimming through the article. I hope they help, because I really feel this is close to getting featured. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm trying to get this article into some sane shape. I deleted that awful summary section, I'm in the process of reorganizing the rest of it (for example, this article tries to tell the story in a chronological fashion, but fails to introduce people properly before mentioning them, for example). It also uses a lot of pointless html comments. Cleaning this up will take a while. →Raul654 00:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Further work

Ok, I've gone through and made some rather extensive changes - the big things:

  • I deleted some moderately large sections of what I judge to be irrelavant material (such as the 4 paragraphs describing Florida law Re: Persistant vegatative states), and I compressed other sections.
  • I deleted Template:Terri Schiavo because it is completely superfluous now - every single item in the template is linked to from this article (some of them many times)
  • I reorganized it so that the TOC is no longer overwhelming
  • I wrote an introductory section
  • I deleted the "sources" section and replaced it with a (currently blank) reference section.

So what's left? We need pictures with acceptable copyrights (or fair use justifications, 'etc), and someone need to go through and change the citation style to the inline+references section that the featured article criteria call for. The ref/notes style, while common, is not required. →Raul654 02:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mark, I've been using dark blue text color, so please don't be surprised at my post here. Anyhow, you are close, but no cigar: For example, the following three links are missing from or unclear in the main Schiavo article:
  • Re: living will - I thought I linked the term during yesterday's changes, but I was mistaken; I have just remedied this. It is linked from 'Discontinuation of life support' section now.
  • The timeline is linked rather prominently from the second paragraph, in the lead of the article. It doesn't get much more prominent than that.
  • The featured article criteria call for inline linking and a references section (which contains a list of all the sources used in the inline citations). This article does have good inline referencing, but it uses html comments for references (which, because it is not visible to the user, is not an acceptable style). The commonly used ones are the ref/note style (see libertarianism) or academic style (see Yom Kippur War). →Raul654 02:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

PS: I was acknowledging your repairs, when I had an edit conflict. Making good progress...--GordonWattsDotCom 02:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"...inline linking and a references section..." I thought we were doing fine in this area, but I don't see your point. I think I will chill out and let you fix the format and then and only then think to tweak it. Cool, eh?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, someone has (1) uncomment all the html citations, (2) convert them into an acceptable style, and then (3) list them all in teh references section. It's a lot of work and after spending the better partof two days fixing up this article I'm not really keen on doing this part myself. →Raul654 02:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you mean find all the links to "extrnal" (NON-wikipedia) pages in the article itself and then convert them into a format that shows them as "references" to a section below -and then that section has the citations in "research paper" format -along with the extrnal links. Is that what you mean?--GordonWattsDotCom 03:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um, not exactly. Every source used (inline) in the article should be listed in the references section. For example:
He was encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and he introduced his in-law family to women he was dating.[http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf]<!-- quoting from page 11 of 38 of Wolfson report --> On [[June 18]], [[1990]], the court appointed Michael Schiavo as his wife's legal guardian. Michael Schiavo's appointment was undisputed by the Schindlers. [http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf]<!--page 8 of Wolfson report-->
Someone has to go through, find html comments like that, uncomment them and convert them into an acceptable style. For example, Academic style:
He was encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and he introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. (Wolfson 11) On [[June 18]], [[1990]], the court appointed Michael Schiavo as his wife's legal guardian. Michael Schiavo's appointment was undisputed by the Schindlers. (Wolfson 8)
Then, once all that is done, someone needs to go to the referneces section, and list all the sources referenced by the article. For things like the Wolfson report, you link to the pdf in the references section (only) →Raul654 03:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Had problem - need guidance

I was placing links to references, the proper method that Mark taught me, when I came upon a senond link to the SAME Newsweek website. Well, I could have placed the link to the reference, but it would have caused the numbering system to be messed up.

Here's what I mean: There were seven links to seven references -each link had the SAME number to it's reference below. OK, so far.

However, when I was about to put in the link to the Newsweek site, it would have been link EIGHT, but there were only seven references below -because the newsweek reference was already there (It was number ONE), so the number EIGHT link, in the text, {{ref|Newsweek}}, which turns into [8], up top in the article, then links to [1] on the bottom, and then the next number in the text (number [9] in the top of the page, in text, that is) would link to a reference on the bottom of the page numbered eight [8].

Therefore, I don't know how to handle this -unless I simply make a "Newsweek2" link just like the first one -but that would be duplicative and take up extra space. I don't know what to do, so I am stopping and asking for help.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'd rather not monkey with the references section: It's large.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just make the extra entry. I don't think it's a big deal if you repeat entries. →Raul654 05:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Acknowledged and noted. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

churn and burn

This is nice. In an effort to get the article on featured article status, I see it has been completely churned. I also see that a few hotly disputed POV issues have conveniently been reintroduced by recent edits. I appreciate the effort. yeah, lets take an article that was wildly controversial and had actually hit a stable point and completely gut it and start over. Now POV warriors can use "we need to change it to get it to featured article status" as a nice excuse to hit the reset button. Unbelievable. Nice work. congratulations guys. I appreciate it. wonderful. great job. Commence the churn and burn. FuelWagon 14:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

major edit flag. Hey, I appreciate everyone using this FAC nonsense as an excuse to turn on the "major edit in progress" flag, and edit the article carte blanche. I especially appreciate it when people do it without so much as a peep on the talk page to mention what it is they are actually attempting to fix. Nice bulldozing folks. keep up the good work. Churn and burn, baby. Churn and burn. FuelWagon 04:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith, please. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United States, perhaps

I'm not sure what you think about this, but I think the introduction should point out that the theatre of this intense attention was the United States. I think the following sounds quite good:

...whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to landmark court decisions, historic legislative initiatives, and intense media attention in the United States.

Comments welcome. — Sverdrup 15:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was big news in Ireland, while she was dying, but I'm sure it was bigger news in the USA. I've no problem with your change, except that I feel at this stage, we should be trying to take things out, rather than put them in (unless something is particularly important or relevant). The article is already too long, and I feel we should be going through it now to see how it can be made shorter without sacrificing essential content. However, your addition is only four words. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

intro, again

Ok, I rewrote the intro. The shindlers and michael didn't always have a contentious relationship. I also tried to give a brief history of events of the major cases that actually made it to trial. The end-of-life wishes was a major trial. And the PVS diagnosis was a major trial. I then give the laundry list of all the other minor cases that either didn't go to actual trial or was quickly turned down or whatever. This should actually give some historical context of the last 15 years of Terri's life. Oh, And without looking, I'll just take a wild guess that it was Gordon who inserted the "debate over .... euthanasia". That is POV. The only way to make it NPOV is to report the different views. And that took four paragraphs, so there isn't room in the intro to do that. we can put the views in the article body if needed. FuelWagon 16:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your new introduction is a big step backwards. Not only is it much longer than an introduction is supposed to be and mentions quite a few things that do not belong in the introduction (such as the fact that michael became a nurse, the fact that hte trial was a week long, 'etc), but it's almost totally unwikified. If you object to the other introduction, fine - I admit it was imperfect and could have used fixing - but that doesn't justify replacing it with something far worse. →Raul654 16:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
No. Sorry. Your version is "a big step backwards" and your version is "something far worse". This topic covers dozens and dozens of court battles, maneuvars, motions, and this intro is a cartoon simplication of reality.
"fought a legal battle for custody." Not even close. There were two or three court cases for guardianship, and a boatload of others that had nothing to do with guardianship. This is gross simplification and ignores the actual court cases.
"Michael wanted to remove the gastric feeding tube" Sure, and this completely ignores that the courts had a whole bunch of witnesses (people related to Terri) testify that she had actually said she wouldn't want to be kept on a machine.
"abortive intervention by the Republicans in Congress" Wow. amazing research. You took something that was practically irrelevant to Terri's case and gave it front page news.
"sparked a fierce debate over euthanasia" Yeah, we've already beaten this horse to death. Euthanasia is illegal in the united states. By definition it is the active killing of a patient. The removal of life support qualifies as the right of a patient ot refuse treatement, and therefore is not euthanasia in any NPOV version of reality. The pope may have declared it euthanasia and the Schindlers may have called it that, but every court that looked at this case, every guardian appointed to look after Terri's best interests, said that Terri would have wanted to refuse treatment.
What is important to this case is that the overwhelming diagnosis was that Terri was PVS and the courts called witnesses to determine that she would have wanted to refuse treatment given her condition. That is the core of this story.
Your intro is no better than a Television soundbite taken from the last weeks of her life. It is meaningless. It has nothing to do with what Terri wanted, and has everything to do with focusing on the feeding tube as if it were all that were in question. And your mention of the republican measures is nothing more than reporting on grandstanding. At the heart of this story is whether or not Terri was aware, whether she had any chance fo recovery, and whether she would have wanted to be kept alive in that condition. Everyhting else is irrelevant.
Also, by reporting nothing but the debate over the feeding tube, you completely ignore the fact that Michael and the Schindlers actually worked together for a few years, that it took Michael 8 years to petition the courts to remove life support, and that the courts actually did their jobs in trying to get to the bottom of terri's end of life wishes (she didn't have a written living will) and her medical condition. That is what is at the heart of this story, not some moronic, grandstanding idiot in DC trying to get his face on a TV campaign.
I'm sorry if my version is too long to qualify for featured article status, but some arbitrary length requirements and some FAC banner shouldn't mean that we take the story about Terri Schiavo and condense it down into a soundbite the last week of her life.
FuelWagon 03:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the major concern seems to be length and mentioning that Michael started training to be a nurse, I've attempted a condensed version of my intro. No mention of nurse training is made. Also, the challenge to guardianship, while shows the evolution of Michael/Schindler's relationship, is not as important as what was Terri's condition and what she would have wanted. The diff is here. Oh, and if wikifying is really that important, feel free to wikify words rather than revert again. FuelWagon 03:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

three paragraph intro

The introduction is now three paragraphs long. Read it here. That should be an acceptable length for an article that was 80K long and has many, many subarticles. FuelWagon 03:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that lead had some flaws (such as forgetting to properly introduce Michael), but the current version seems to lack those flaws. It's worth noting that you don't neccessarily need to make proper academic references in the lead, however (I assume this is due to Gordon's hard work). The lead is a bit long-ish, but considering the article's length and its topic's controversy, not unpardonable. My main qualm now is with the length; I'll have to go over the article again before deciding whether to vote to support its candidacy for being featured. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too long. hm. Well, it's now shorter. FuelWagon 14:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better now. →Raul654 15:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Euthanasia, again

I removed the sentence from the intro that insert the POV hot-button word "euthanasia" [1]. Knock it off. We've beaten this horse a million times. The term "euthanasia" is POV. The Pope and the Schindlers called it "euthanasia". The courts, the guardian ad litems appoited to hold Terri's best interests at heart, and Michal, all contend that this had nothing to do with euthanasia.

This sentence would be no different to insert the following sentence into the abortion article:

The Roe v. Wade decision generated massive debates about reproductive choices, women's rights, and murdering unborn children.

If you think I'll ever let you put this POV thing in, you are sadly mistaken. FuelWagon 16:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your analogy holds, because euthanasia is not comparable to "murdering", "murdering" is moral characterization. Euthanasia is actually a euphamism for mercy killing, and "mercy killing" itself, is not as condemning as "murdering".--Silverback 16:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Euthanasia is illegal in the US. So, the analogy to "murdering unborn children" is accurate. Withdrawing life support is considered a patient's right to refuse treatment, which is completely legal in the US. There is no way you can neutrally say this has anything to do with euthanasia. None. FuelWagon 16:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However illegal euthanasia is, it happens quite often and is socially acceptable in the US, and only raises a legal issue in extreme circumstances. Doses of morphine sufficient to supress respiration are quite common in suffering cancer patients. BTW, I thought murdering unborn children was legal in the US?--Silverback 16:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


ATTENTION: I will be glad to compromise, as we have in the past, but this statement is not saying that euthanasia either occurred or didn't -it merely reports that the shchiavo controversy sparked much debate (which is quite true). ~~ to that end, I will attempt to put your additions back in, as if they would add balance somehow, and then proceed to repair the damage you did. Is that compromise or what?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I put the entire text into the body of the article here. FuelWagon 17:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Text move: FuleWagon's dispute on this edit

  • His edit comments were this: Stop inserting this POV assertion. you can't hide the term "euthanasia" in this laundry list, not give the courts, the guardians, or Michaels POV, and claim this is neutral in any way. I request further input, per the "text move" rule that Uncle Ed made recenty, and I'm moving the text in question here before reverting.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

euthanasia points of view

The version containing all the different POV's regarding "euthanasia" is located here. It reports at least four different points of view. The Schindlers (and the Pope), Michael, the guardians, and the courts:

David Gibbs III, the lead lawyer for Terri Schiavo’s parents, supported Vatican statements which condemned her treatment as euthanasia. Pope John Paul II stated that health care providers are morally obligated to provide food and water to patients in persistent vegetative states. This led to a challenge by Schiavo's parents, who requested a new trial about whether their daughter, as a devout Catholic, would wish to go against the Church's teaching. Judge Greer rejected their request.[2].
Schiavo's husband insisted that she had expressed her wishes not to be kept on life support with no hope for improvement.
During a trial in 2000, testimony was heard from witnesses on both sides to establish Schiavo's wishes regarding life support. The court determined that she had made "credible and reliable" statements that she wouldn't want to be "kept alive on a machine [with] no hope of improvement" and that her condition in a persistent vegetative state had "long since satisfied" the requirement that there be no hope of improvement. [3],
In 2003, guardian ad litem Dr. Jay Wolfson was appointed by Florida legislature to "deduce and represent the best wishes and bests interests" of Schiavo. He reported to Governor Jeb Bush that "the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states," and that the evidence regarding Schiavo's medical condition and intentions had been "deemed by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing." [4] "The reasonable degree of medical certainty associated with her diagnosis and prognosis is very high."

These are the various points of view regarding whether this had anythign to do with euthanasia or not. You want to put one point of view in, you put them all in to keep the article neutral. anything else is POV. FuelWagon 16:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally, don't think her death was euthanasia, because there is no evidence that she was suffering, or for that matter would care whether her previously expressed end of life wishes were followed or not.--Silverback 16:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

self promotion

While I'm at it, how did this get in there? A link to a partisan website authored by wikipedia editor GordonWatts? Is this self promotion? I have a problem with this link being in the article. FuelWagon 17:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is advocacy, I think, and belongs. ALL the links in that section are partison. Bring it to the attention of the other editors and talk about it first -but before you do, make sure you understand why an item was placed there. That link is in no way out of place -other than, of course, my "conflict of interst," but I think it stands on its own -all things considered, escpecially considereing my deep involvement in this morrass.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to look up wikipedia's rules on self-promotion to see if this is a problem. I know of editors on wikipedia who have wikipedia articles written about them, and they do not edit their own articles to prevent any percieved "conflict of interest" from occurring. FuelWagon 17:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kenneth O'Keefe edited his own article and it survived an RfD, although he did the editing as a anon.William Connolley also edited his own article. Jimmy Wales edited his own article. Chip Berlet edited his own article. These are the only editors with their own articles that I am aware of, and they all edited on their article page.--Silverback 19:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
There's several dozen of 'em: Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Indeed, editting one's own article seems to be a pretty common sport; starting one's own article is by no means unknown, either. Alai 04:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it pretty blatant self promotion (IMO), but it smacks of original research too. →Raul654 19:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

That controversial, self-promoting flake

Yeah, I mean me. ;-) Anyone need my help here? I guess my vacation is now officially over - asked for one week, took six. How's it going? Uncle Ed 22:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle Ed. I'm glad you're still here. I'm not sure what the others think, but I feel that the atmosphere is much better than it was before you came along. So, even though very little has been posted to the special mediation page, and even though the article still has a lot of room for improvement (in my view), I think something has been achieved. Do stay around. Ann Heneghan (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we hit a fairly stable point and the article remained unchanged for a week or so. Probably a record. Then Gordon nominated it for Featured Article status and that stirred it up again. apparently the links were not formatted "to spec". I think they look gawd-awful now, but that's just me. Other than that, a brief tiff over the intro that seems to have sorted itself out. The Featured Article vote looks pretty grim, though. The images have questionable copyright status. and people still complain its too long even after someone chopped it down to 50k. I think getting it to featured status may not be possible, but Gordon seems to have kept his optimism about it. Otherwise, I think it settled out for now. FuelWagon 06:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the article length Nazi's still dominated those who vote for featured article status, then blow it off. There is no way thoroughness should be sacrificed, and this subject doesn't merit spinoff articles.--Silverback 06:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Infinite Editing Loop

I've been looking at the recent edits and reverts. Let me tell editors who believe that the article is biased towards Michael's POV: At the end of about two or three months of involvement in the editing process, I realized that the whole framework of discussion of this case is dictated by the vocabulary and characterizations chosen by the guardians ad litem and Judge Greer.

The case record often refers to "end of life" when Terri was not at risk of death. It refers to "life support" to include assisted oral feeding and drinking. There are many other such objectionable examples. But the record, especially the orders of the court are the enduring record. Online testimony, affidavits, and media interviews are begining to disappear. We are stuck with the GAL's and court's POV such as it is. patsw 02:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End-of-life refers to living-will choices. A patient has the right to refuse medical care if they wish. Florida law allows this to include a PVS patient to refuse being hooked up to a feeding tube in a vegatative state with no hope of recovery. Whether Terri was about to die or not didn't matter. A patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. And if they don't have a living will, the court can get witnesses to figure out what they wanted. FuelWagon 05:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo_case&oldid=22231773"