Jump to content

Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Valentine's Day rewritten

The original valentines day argument is presented in pretty much from Mary Schindler's point of view. I removed it and placed it here, for review:

The cause of the breakdown in communication between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo is controversial. There was an apparent confrontation on St. Valentine's Day of 1993. [1] On that day, Michael Schiavo was in Terri's nursing home room studying to become a nurse. When the Schindlers arrived, Michael maintains that Bob Schindler began to demand money, became belligerent, and stormed out of the room. According to Mary Schindler's later testimony, Michael Schiavo had promised to reimburse the Schindlers for letting him live rent-free at their condominium and for other financial assistance. While conversing about financial issues, the Schindlers suggested that they could now afford specialized care for Terri with the money from the malpractice suit. According to Mary Schindler, Michael denied this request and threatened that the Schindlers would never again see their daughter. They chose Randall Terry as their official spokesman.

I replaced it with excerpts from the wolfson and pearse reports which are a bit more neutral. I also moved it to the section "family relationship" so it isn't specific to the Schindlers any more. I'd like to trim down some of the stuff that is in the Michael section but should be in the "relationship" section.

Complaints about the cut, move, and rewrite? FuelWagon 23:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't find the original to be from Mary Schindler's POV but only supporting Michael Schiavo's claim that greed was the motive for the split between him and the Schindler's. The Schindler's claim that with the money in hand, Michael immediately changed from seeking rehabilitation for Terri to seeking to hasten her death by denying treatment to Terri and blocking the Schindler's access to her medical records and restricting visitation. Michael as guardian was acting within his legal rights and he kept this guardianship and right to inherit the estate in spite of rather than because of testimony like this from the 1993 hearing:
Attorney: When you made the decision that you were not going to treat Terri’s infection and you were, in effect, going to allow her to die, did you think that you had any obligation to tell her parents?
Michael: To answer that question, I probably would have let them know sooner or later.
Attorney: You never did let them know, though, did you?
Michael: No.
Left untreated, the infection would eventually have caused sepsis and Terri's death. Fortunately the nursing home eventually gave Terri the antibiotics anyway, and she recovered. It's details like this lead one believe that the big change in his attitude came when the check cleared in early 1993 rather than years later at the time of the first petition to withdraw the feeding tube.
For the revision of the VD section, it's a huge improvement. If I could I would change "agressive treatments" to be "rehabilition which had been deferred because of lack of funds" which removes the need to make an editorial judgement about calibrating from "ordinary" to "agressive".
So you don't think comments like According to Mary Schindler's later testimony, Michael Schiavo had promised to reimburse the Schindlers for letting him live rent-free at their condominium and for other financial assistance. While conversing about financial issues, the Schindlers suggested that they could now afford specialized care for Terri with the money from the malpractice suit. According to Mary Schindler, Michael denied this request and threatened that the Schindlers would never again see their daughter are POV? I guess it must be us anti-Terri Michael Schiavo partisans gettin' uppity. Professor Ninja 07:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
By this:
supporting Michael Schiavo's claim that greed was the motive
you meant supporting Mary's view that 'greed' was the motive, correct? Since it's quoting Mary's words, it is by definition, Mary's point of view. Unless you think that Mary's view is Neutral Point Of View, in which case, please read up on NPOV. The reason I changed it to the two reports submitted by independent parties was to have a more NPOV take on what happened, since the two people appointed by the courts are more likely to be truly neutral. FuelWagon 15:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Splitting article

This article is getting seriously lengthy. I propose turning it into a private/public split as was earlier proposed by another user who's name eludes me. Essentialy one could make an article about the Public involvement in the Terri Schiavo case with sections 7, 8, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.2.1, 9.2.2, 9.2.3, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 & 9.6. This would be an intelligent fork in the article as the rest of the sections deal with the private aspects of the Schiavo case. It would at least help in reducing it in size. Any comments? Professor Ninja 00:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

to Ann Heneghan

Yes, I checked the diffs. I reverted your edit along with the vandalism. Which was not my intention, as there was nothing wrong with your edits. I apologize. Professor Ninja 23:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Ann Heneghan 23:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The NCDave situation

I've been watching this war (and responding a time or two myself) for some time. I believe I was the first to make the observation that NCDave was merely a troll, and recent events have completely erased any doubt in my mind. On usenet and other fora we have found the most effective method for dealing with persons of that ilk are the age old practice of shunning. Do not respond to him. Do not acknowledge him. Do not rise to your own defense when he attacks, misquotes, or otherwise abuses you or the article or the process. All we need to do is watch for his stealth oh-dark-hundred vandalisms and revert as quickly as possible. He is clearly starved for attention and is not worthy of one nanosecond of anyone's time. LRod 216.76.216.65 23:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not misquote, I do not vandalize, I do not engage in name-calling, and I do not appreciate your personal attack, LRod. NCdave 00:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would follow my own advice and ignore the trolling, but since others have given me leave, I'll say this: you do, you do, you do, and I don't care. LRod 216.76.216.65 01:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
LRod, the difference between here and usenet and other forums is that NCdave is allowed to run free editing other user comments and the article; there is no choice but to respond to his clearly documented despite his totally undocumented assertions otherwise instances of misquoting, his clearly documented despite his totally undocumented assertions otherwise instances of vandalism, and his clearly documented despite his totally undocumented assertions otherwise instances of name-calling[2]. I appreciate that you're acting with the best intentions at heart, unfortunately without directly engaging him we risk a) reverting pertinent edits he makes which will only give him ammunition to complain, b) allow him even more time to do those edits while he's not distracted with this talk page, c) allow other users to be bamboozled by his campaign of misinformation (he's managed to sucker a few new editors doing nothing more than assuming good faith on his part with outright lies, which are, of course, documented and available upon request). I know NCdave is a troll, but in a wiki environment, we are unfortunately forced to acknowledge the trolls. Ignoring them well only make them so, so much worse. Imagine a vindictive troll with a vandal bot or too much free time "punishing" wikipedians by screwing up all the articles they can find. The best thing to do is to continue documenting evidence against him on the rfc page and get a succinct ruling. Professor Ninja 00:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hey LRod. yeah, I know the drill. Generally, when he rants about black helicopters and strange crop circles I just ignore him. When he accuses me of trashing an entire religion and misquotes me in the process, I lay into him. That's what a troll wants, I know. I must learn the lesson to please not feed the trolls. FuelWagon 00:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Natural Means

Judge Greer denies a motion to provide food and water to Terri by "natural means" here: http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/030805orderdenyfood.pdf

Unfortunately, it references another motion, which I don't have a URL for.

The order to deny food and water by natural means: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder030805.pdf StuartGathman 14:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone added it to the intro saying Greer prohibited foor and water by natural means. I tweaked it to say he denied a motion for food and water by natural means. but I would like to add the explanation. Unfortunately, Greer references some other motion which I don't have a URL for and he also says "Both require an experimental procedure". Does anyone have plain language explanation of why the motion was denied? It sounds like it is a duplicate of another motion, and the otehr motion was denied for some reason. FuelWagon 07:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a question as to whether Terri was capable of swallowing on her own. Maybe that is why it would be an experimental procedure to feed her water orally? Just a guess. Kingturtle 07:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think Tropix is biased towards the Shindler's point of view. The original text that Tropix put in the intro was that Judge Greer denied food and water by natural means, which could be interpreted by readers to mean, they could feed her orally, but he wouldn't let them. I'm also not sure if the ruling that she wouldn't wanted to have been kept alive in this kind of state overrules whether or not feeding her "naturally" or not really mattered. If Terri was PVS, then is somehow forcing food down her throat while she is totally reflexive and non-aware, is that substituting an esophogus for a plastic tube and its still life support, just without the surgery? As far as I know, Tropix hasn't read anything on this page, but I think Tropix is the one who ought to find a URL to the second motion that Greer references. FuelWagon 11:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fuel Wagon, why can't you leave it to the reader to judge the judge? The POV you advocate is the certainty that Greer's ruling reflected Terri's wishes to suffer 13 days of dehyration and starvation in order to die. While the court order exists, the certainty that is was her wish does not exist. This is the major POV problem with the entire article - unjustified certainty of claims made by Michael Schiavo. This is always butressed by the identifying food and water with life support which remains politically contentious and presented in the article as if it were not so.
Re: Judge the Judge. Facts are facts and judgements are judgements. Facts belong in wikipedia. The wording of Greer denying food and water left out facts to allow the reader broader range of judgements. Fill in all the facts, and fewer judgements are possible. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
as to "the certainty that it was her wish does not exist", you cannot state that by itself and be NPOV. The entire body of facts around what she wanted, need be presented together in one location so that claims and assertions and accusations can be held in proper context to the facts. The primary fact is that the courts ruled that Terri would not want to be kept on life support. Then claims that Terri said this and Terri said that have some context to live in. But those claims can only be asserted by the main parties involved, Michael or the parents. Assertions are not the place to allow the writer to say "yeah, but this is really what happened". After the fact of the court ruling, the primary assertions of both sides has next precedence in "weight". The whole point of a courtroom is that you get fairness, cross examination, objective interrogation, and a respect to the rule of law. Far less "weight" then is given to third parties not directly involved. Iyer's affadavit cannot be quoted out of context without mentioning the facts that fail to align with her assertions and the fact that Greer ruled it "incredible to say the least". The point is to let the reader judge Iyer's statements, but in context of all the other information, not in a vacuum. NCdave, for example, said Pearson asserted there was a causal link between malpractice money and Michael's change of attitude. But that wasn't fact. It was HIS representation and interpretation of what Pearson said. Pearson never said anything about there being a link from one to the other. He said there is the appearance of or an actual conflict of interest. The reader must be able to judge the facts, not judge the judgements of the wikipedian author. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Huh? Who's "Pearson?" I never said anything about anybody named Pearson. NCdave 06:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not it matters according to your point of view, the order itself to "cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the Ward, THERESA SCHIAVO at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005." does not permit any attempt to naturally feed Terri. (i.e. to introduce food and water through the mouth.) The background Tropix cites is that Terri was not given a swallow test or any therapy to rehabilitate her ability to eat and drink through the mouth at the insistance of Michael Schiavo. Once that was established by the order of the court, Greer using the principle that he had ruled on it earlier to now deny any natural food or water to be given to her after March 18 2005. The order denying the motion as you requested. patsw 13:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Will look at it later today. No time right now. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Read it. Wasn't what I was looking for. Greer mentions some other thing and says "if that is upheld, this motion isn't needed. If that is rejected, then the courts should use this to do indirectly what it would not allow directly" I cannot find the "it" that he is talking about. FuelWagon 22:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the legalease going on in this motion being rejected? Greer references some other document or some other motion or something, and I don't know how to trace back to the original from his cryptographic text. I want to know what legal basis was to reject the motion, leaving it as "just rejected" leaves too many interpretations open. need more facts. FuelWagon 23:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

can you be more specific as to which motions/orders you need "translated" (date)? there were an incredible no. of post-trial motions and related orders...if you give me reference points, then i might could take a stab at "translating" the "legalese" (really, it's not cryptic) i don't think that this particular county has an online docket, which would list all the motions in chronological order (go to the county clerk's website). however, abstractappeal.com has a number of the motions, findlaw has a few, and one of the univ websites (UM?) had a fairly comprehensive list with links. (also, see the life support v. nutrition and hydration discussion above for a small, minor "translation" of one motion)--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 00:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was the link patsw provided: [3] To quote the mumbo jumbo in question:
"it has become clear that the motion is part and parcel of Respondents Fla R. Civ. P rule 1.540(b)(5) motion on medical evaluations. The same declarations are being used fr both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the 1.540(b)(5) motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure."
I have no clue what he's talking about. FuelWagon 00:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Greer was apparently referring to the provision of food and water by natural means as an "experimental procedure" because it had not been resolved whether or not Terri's swallowing capabilities were sufficient to enable her to be sustained by food and water provided by natural means. But the reason that question had not been resolved was that Judge Greer, himself, forbade the swallowing therapy and swallowing tests that would have resolved it. NCdave 06:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


You can read the motion for feeding by natural means (which the judge denied):[4].
The motion (which I paraphrase) claimed :
  • that Terri could swallow saliva and water from toothbrushing,
  • that natural ingestion of food and water would not violate the court order to remove "artificial life support" (this is what the court ruled she did not want, based on the hearsay comments attributed to her),
  • that denying natural ingestion would make the court's orders penal instead of executory,
  • if granted, then either Terri would eat and survive, or not.
The judge denied this motion. If "natural means" are not life support under Florida law, does this leave Terri's death either euthanasia or assisted suicide? Are either legal in Florida?
Tropix 03:35, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
No, neither are legal in Florida. [5] [6] NCdave 06:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So that answers the second question. That just leaves the first question for someone to answer. Tropix 06:31, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
(1) It would be more appropriate to write that the judge denied the "Respondents' [Schindlers'] Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission To Provide Terri Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means after the Assisted Nutrition and Hydration Are Discontinued" on the grounds that this motion was identical to the already filed Respondents' 1.540(b)(5) Motion. That is, Respondents submitted to the court motions that were different in name only--there were no distinctions in the substance of the motions. Therefore, it is appropriate to deny the one motion because it is duplicative/repetitive/redundant. But please see my comment (3) below, that it is not appropriate to be parsing these motions and accompanying orders out of the broader context of the judicial proceedings.
(2) A Rule 1.540 Motion is a Motion seeking relief from judgment, decrees, or orders. This particular motion was apparently arguing 1.540(b)(5), that the judgment/decrees/orders should be vacated (i.e., voided) because that "judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application." Frankly, it cannot be analyzed (will stay "mumbo jumbo") without the actual motion or the accompanying memorandum of law to explain why they advocate this legal argument. [I'm guessing that maybe it might have been that it was no longer equitable? Or that they were unable to argue 1.540(b)(1),(2) or (3) because the time to do so had passed and/or there were no new arguments/evidence? but that's all conjecture without more.]
(3) This is arguing minutiae and is bordering on the nonsensical. One point of view is parsing--quoting out of context--from a series, and an exceptionally long series, of motions and corresponding orders, in order to make a political statement. Which is great for advocacy, but not for neutrality. For a writing comprehension standpoint, it is probably best tackled by analyzing the post-trial activity; in this instance, grouping the motions together and explaining them as post-trial motions filed by the parties, on what grounds, and the reasons for denying/granting, etc. --Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mia-Cle, wow, thanks. I think I understand it a little better. So, I'm still wondering about the neutrality of the current article's mention of Greer denying food and water by natural means, because I'm trying to figure out in what context it was denied. From what you're saying, I think Greer denied the motion because it was exactly identical to another motion he had denied, but the Schindlers had changed the title. Is that correct? I'm not sure if I understand if you found the original motion somewhere (URL?) and/or Greer's reason for rejecting it. Did you find the other motion he mentioned? If the motion cannot be put in context (i.e. if the other motion and the reason for its denial cannot be included), I'm a little wary of leaving mention of this motion being denied, since it comes with implications that Terri could eat food and water on her own, and Greer simply denied it. Since I think you have a much better grasp on this than I do, do you have any suggestions for achieving NPOV when the article mentions this motion being denied? FuelWagon 18:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
uh, okay, give me a few days to look this over and get back to you. [I'm doing this in my free time; or, in lawyerspeak, not billable time.] (In the meantime, if you really want to understand the legal bits, i highly, highly recommend abstractappeal.com--the home page, not just the Schiavo page. You have to scroll down to get to the late March-early April entries concerning the Schiavo case, but it's worth it. The writer strikes me as one sharp attorney and a very good writer, with an aptitude for translating the legalese. Some entries you might want to look at are April 9 (hearsay), and then in late March/early April there are entries on the Iyers affidavit, more on hearsay, living wills, and so on; he also posted when motions were filed (with links) and orders issued (with links) and some explanation. If you are writing any of the aspects of the legal case, his explanations might clear up some of your confusion as to how or why something happened.)Mia-Cle 20:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon says: From what you're saying, I think Greer denied the motion because it was exactly identical to another motion he had denied, but the Schindlers had changed the title. Is that correct?
You're getting there now, and you're at about the same place I am. (: I do not know precisely which motion the order is referring to when it says that the material in the new motion is already a part of a previous motion. It does seem clear that the previous motion had not yet been ruled on at the time the subsequent motion was denied, since the order explains what the result would be if the original motion was eventually denied and what the result would be if it was accepted (probably not the proper term, but, oh well). My suggestion would be to e-mail Matt Conigliaro at abstractappeal.com and ask him if he can clarify which motion the denial we're talking about was referring to. He's really helpful and can usually point one in the right direction re documents.--Minaflorida 20:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My best guess, which is at least somewhere to start, is that this is the earlier motion that the later denial of motion refers to: document here

The denial order (the one dated March 8) mentions that the content of the motion is part and parcel of the previous "motion on medical evaluations." I believe the court is talking about the motion where the Schindlers asked for new tests. That motion was itself denied on March 9: document here That would be consistent with the language in the March 8 denial, as it refers to the previous motion as if it had not yet been ruled on.--Minaflorida 20:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I think this [7] is in refernce to the other motion that the Schindlers filed. Greer mentions that the schindlers want more testing using an fMRI and that one of their own doctors in the affadavits says fMRI is EXPERIMENTAL, which is what he mentioned in the other denial. I'll put it in the feeding tube section FuelWagon 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Miniflorida and Mia-Cle. I updated the "life support - feeding tube" section with the full context based on these two links and your explanations. lemme know what you think. FuelWagon 21:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mia-Cle, I just re-read you comments above. I get what you mean by arguing the minutia. I guess the reason I wanted to put it in the article is so that it puts into context what conspiracy-theory websites are reporting as "Greer denies food and water by natural means." I guess I figure if it's in wikipedia, but put into proper context, then hopefully some of the people will get the truth, and the conspiracy nuts can't say "There must be some truth to it because they don't even mention it in Wikipedia". Including it makes the claim that "it's being hidden because there's some awful truth underneath" fail to hold water. Then again, if you try to rebuke every conspiracy theory around this, the one article could take an entire encyclopedia. But then, if I take it out, someone will have to go through this same investigation to either put it into full context, or argue to take it out because it's out of context. I don't know. I'm getting burned out to some degree here. FuelWagon 01:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i understand completely and you have my sympathy-- my apologies for not responding in more detail at this point (i haven't had the time to read the entire article, actually), but i will later. (there is always hope that with time, and after all the books come out and the made for tv movies/docudramas air, then you and others will be able to edit this article with the kind of balance you are trying to achieve). kudos for all your hard work. --Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 14:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from Tropix, via my user talk page:

Here is my concern: The second motion does not contain any reference to experimental procedures. Maybe something was attached to the motion, I don't know, but the body of the motion is only about feeding by mouth, no tests. I suggest you might delete the statement "It contained the same requests for fMRI scans, the same request for VitalStim swallowing therapy, and the same affadavits." if that statement is wrong. I agree that the judge in his denial order refers to both motions as requesting experimental procedures, but this appears to be an error on his part. Perhaps the first one did, but not the second.

You may wish also wish to read the 2000 order, page 10, where Judge Greer orders the discontinuance of Micheal's artificial life support. I assume that even a judge can make minor errors from time to time.

Tropix 05:07, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I noted your change this morning, and thank you for removing that sentence. Since you added the judge's wording (in which he apparently spoke in error) it would neutralize the remaining inaccuracy to add a comment that the second motion did not, in fact, request experimental procedures. Otherwise, the reader is given the direct but wrong impression that it did, when we know it didn't. Tropix 15:13, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FuelWagon"


Tropix, if you can find the original motions and show that one doesn't mention fMRI, then put it in. If you can show a court document from the Schindlers or something from their lawyer were they object to this comment, then link to that and put it in. But unless you have something that solid to show Greer made a provable mistake, and the Schindlers or someone else neutral didn't dispute it, then you can't just say Greer's decision is wrong, when the Shindlers never disputed it or something. if an appeal court or something looked at everything and said, "yeah, Greer should have treated these as two separate motions" then go for it. Otherwise, we're "in the minutia" as Mia-Cle said. If Greer MISPOKE but his decision to deny would still stand, what is the point, reallY? If an appeal court or something woudl say his decision was valid, then who are you trying to hang by bringing this up? If the Schindlers or their lawyer said something about Greer's wording or decision, then put that in as a direct dispute. But the opinion of some armchair lawyer on a third-party blog and a demonstrated bias should probably stay out. Do you get what I'm trying to say? I don't mind putting in any valid disputes, but I don't want this to be a way for some "Culture of Death" comment from some outside website to be snuck into the article. There is a fundamental difference. It really comes down to the source of who is disputing the decision. If the Schindlers didn't try to show Greer was wrong or had misread the motions, then why bring in some third party with a political agenda? do you get where I'm coming from? FuelWagon 16:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I think we need a lawyer to go over the life-prolonging-procedures/life support/feeding tube section. There are motions and motions and rulings and rulings and a lot of explanations and I'd like to see a lawyer comb through it and at least confirm that it isn't factually wrong. It may not be complete, but at least it isn't factually wrong. I'd also like to include the swallowing tests and when they occurred. They're mentioned in a report, but no dates are given as to when they occurred. FuelWagon 04:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The swallowing tests and therapy that she got were no later than 1992. Here's a link to an excerpt from Michael's November, 1992 testimony in the malpractice case. He's apparently commenting on a video recording which is being played in court. He describes how a speech pathologist seen on the video is coaxing Terri into swallowing, and says, "He comes in and massages her lips and uses different flavors to try to help her swallow... She just swallowed that time." [209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1120621/posts?page=304#323]
BTW, vegetative patients cannot perceive flavors. NCdave 11:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BTW, part of flavouring is reflex. You know, stuff like gag reflex. Like extremely bitter tastes (common in poisons) that cause you to gag whether you want to or not. Your brain might be gone, but guess what still works, other than my ability to call you and your misinformation out almost immediately? The rest of your nervous system! Professor Ninja 11:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I tried to clarify the section a bit more, this evening, and fix some typos. The motions do ask for two different things; the first for a period of time to test and do therapy; and the second a last plea to provide water and maybe food. The motion acknowledges that it may not even be possible, but it argues that to try is not within the scope of the 2000 order and thus would not violate it. All are linked to source documents. So I think the motions are important, but I don't propose saying that Greer's order is wrong. Tropix 06:24, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
I believe that when Greer states in his order that the energency motion is "part and parcel" of the experimental procedures motion, he is referring to numbers 17, 18, and 19 on page 5 of the motion, related to Terri ingesting food by natural means. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say this with complete certainty. I do find it curious that when an editor has a difficult time understanding the legalese, that editor proclaims that the judge was wrong or did not mean what he wrote. Perhaps your understanding of the law is lacking and not the judge's. I hate to verge on being argumentative, but I think it's wrongfully arrogant for one to assume s/he has a better understanding of the law than the judge in the case, unless that person is a legal expert. No matter what you think of Greer personally, I think it's safe to say he knows more about Florida law than we do.--Minaflorida 12:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Additonally, the "experimental procedure" in the emergency motion to feed orally would be--presumably--feeding Terri orally. That, in and of itself, would have been an experimental procedure--one that her medical history indicates would likely have choked her to death. I do not see anywhere in the denial order that Greer states that both motions ask for identical experimental procedures, just that they both ask for experimental procedures. Please steer me in the right direction if I'm missing it.--Minaflorida 12:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon: I am a lawyer, licensed to practice (and do) in the State of Florida, etc., etc., etc., and I would be happy to look it over and remark; however, my concern is not with the factuality of the nit-picky detail, it's that this nit-picky analysis of minute detail is occurring. I tried to read the article last night to see how the legal issues/cases were addressed and I had to stop in frustration. The elements of the court case have been so separated and broken down in order to make political/social points that it lacks any coherence and is confusing. What I would like to see happen is more organizational (and this is a quick, rough outline): the probate case needs to be addressed separately. Why was this in court (in Florida every person--competent and incompetent--has a right to refuse medical treatment, what the Fla. Stat. say on the subject, the role of the court when the person is incompetent), what the legal issues were before the court (was TS in PVS, what were TS end-of-life wishes)who the parties were, what were their respective arguments, evidence presented, and the judge's decision. Then the appellate process (what happened--what courts did what and why). The initial attempt to get into federal court (which was dimissed I believe). Then "Terri's Law" (what happened; its separate legal case with legal issues unrelated to the probate case--can the legislature/governor do this). Then back to probate court (post-trial motions). Then the feds (law; its unique legal issues and how it went through the federal court system). Then back to probate court (yet more post trial motions). This kind of framework will not exclude all the interesting social/political stuff. What needs to be made clear is that such-and-such a side points to and excises a particular element of the court case to make its social commentary.Mia-Cle 14:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mia-Cle, if you can do that, I salute you. I'm no lawyer, so it's WAY over my head. to Mia-Cle and Minaflorida, I think this bit about the "natural means" motion is making a mountain out of a molehill. I looked at the motions and Greer's denial and realized that Greer is calling feeding by natural means an "experimental procedure" (same conclusion as you, Minaflorida, I thought of it indiependently in the shower this morning, honest), a "different pleading" of the same thing. Basically, the first motion asks for VitalStim swallowing therapy, which had never been done on a PVS patient, the second motion doesn't call it "swallowing therapy" but says "can we try to feed her? Maybe we can get her to swallow", which is swallowing therapy with a different label. The only reason I want to keep it in is because it's obviously become a hot button issue for people who want to hang Greer. "My God, he won't let them feed her by natural means? He's a monster!" I would like to put in when swallowing tests were performed. A report mentions the tests and says she failed them, but no dates were given. Anyway, I tried to tweak teh article a little bit to explain the motions and denials for those who wish to hang the judge. FuelWagon 14:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I wrote a little e-mail to Matt Conigliaro at abstractappeal, asking him a couple of questions about these two motions. He's been really helpful for me in the past, so I hope to get a response in the next few days. I invited him to come edit the page, if he's interested. I don't know what the odds are on that--dude is one busy mofo--but it's a try. (:--Minaflorida 17:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)



It is universally agreed that the discontinuance of hydration and feeding caused Terri to die. At the time of these two motions (First, request for time for experimental procedures [8], and second, request to feed by natural means [9]) there was an order in place to remove her feeding tube. The denial of these orders extended that to prohibiting feeding by "natural means". It is possible that the judge considered it experimental, but, whatever his reasoning, it was prohibited and enforced. The issue of feeding by natural means became a significant part of the final controversy. Over 50 demonstrators were arrested at the hospice trying to bring her water, presumably for attempted feeding by mouth. No demonstrators were attempted to bring her a feeding tube. Feeding by natural means is not life support under Florida law, so the controversy and discussion have a rational basis. So these motions should be referenced and described. There should not be any paraphrasing slanting a point of view, as the documents are direct and speak for themselves. While they are legal documents, and subject to all the formalities of the legal process, they are still comprehensible and clear. Legal analysis is fine, but will not be a service to obscure these motions in formalities. They will be important for readers wishing to reference and study this issue. Tropix 17:37, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Tropix...Protestors were arrested for trespassing, not for attempting to defy a court order by feeding Terri orally. I agree that the legal documents are comprehensive and clear. I agree with you that these are important aspects of the controversy and that they should be referenced in the article.--Minaflorida 17:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, that they were arrested for trespassing. When I said they were arrested trying to bring her water, I didn't mean to imply that was the reason for arrest. It was the nature of the protest I meant to describe. Tropix 20:56, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I misread you.--Minaflorida 21:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo_case/Archive_21&oldid=249535162"