![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I added the fact that most of her cortex is gone, as the citation states. Saying the whole cortex is gone is misleading.
---MDW
Bertrand Russell said that "the smart man says one thing, and the stupid men translate that into something their minds can understand." That's what happened here: Everyone who is screaming for this dead person to continue to be artificially maintained is absolutely and certainly (and most unfortunately) religious.
I am not sure how you claim everyone who supports keeping Terri alive is religious. I am an atheist and I see the actions on both sides illogical. The core issue is the diagosis, that she is PVS. There has been lot of medical experts who claim otherwise and it is accepted, that PVS s a difficult diagnosis to make with very high probablity of error. How do you claim that she is already dead (no consciousness) when that is part of the core issue being debated ?
--AA
To offer a little clarity: a long, long time ago, before science had developed and the mind was still primitive, the world was difficult to explain. So, people began to worship the planets, the stars, trees, mountains, animals and such. As the human mind evolved, the propensity for anthropomorphism developed as well. Suddenly, there were gods too. It didn't take too long to make a war of it: "my god/gods is/are better than your god/gods," etc...
The next thing that happened is that even though the average individual remained fairly stupid, they began to believe that they knew "the truth": an immaterial subjective, perceptual POV. Most of them are still unwilling to accept reality. They prefer faith, but faith has no fact. Of course, the rest of us know that god is dead. Not it was ever alive.
Since Merriam-Webster is probably the best comprehensive source for the English language, I have included this definition, which I'm sure you excluded purposely since it did not fit your (NCdave) intent:
2vegetable Function: noun 1 : a usually herbaceous plant (as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part; also : such an edible part 2 : a person whose mental and physical functioning is severely impaired and especially who requires supportive measures (as intravenous feeding or mechanical ventilation) to survive
This woman is already dead. She couldn't even think "Ouch!," if you gave her a vivisection. cyboar 05:43, 20 Mar 2005 (PST)
Cybor, It looks like you are basing your arguments on the claim that she has no consciousness. It is one of the disputed points. Hence your description has POV. --AA
Despite this, after reading the article, I think there's a lot of POV in it on both sides.
Pending consensus, I'm going to chop out all the stuff about Michael Schiavo. My reasoning being that this is the article about Terri Schiavo - a lot of the stuff about her husband is irrelevant character smearing. Obviously some detail is pertinent, but not the extended commentary currently on the page.
MichelleG 12:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).
The original diagnosis was that her condition was caused by her bulemia. I think that some people are confusing the issue of whether or not a guardian has the right to make certain medical decisions versus whether or not Michael Schiavo is a suitable guardian for his wife. If you don't believe that anyone has the right to have feeding tubes removed from another person, then it is irrelevant whether or not Michael Schiavo is/was a good husband. If you agree that a well-intentioned guardian has that right, but suspect that MS ought to be disqualified, than the argument should be centering around the issue of custody and the accusations against him should be examined and resolved. To argue that a guardian would have the right, but we are barring it in this case due to unsubstantiated claims is to make this already difficult situation chaotic. Anyone who disagreed with a decision could highjack the authority by alleging malice without having to prove it. (Note that I do not take a position on MS's fitness as a guardian.) 152.163.100.9 23:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I did a little autumn cleaning on the links, in honour of it not being summer for a few minutes now:
The first three laws are all hard links with good data. I kept them.
The Village Voice articles are rather good, but the way they are formatted was bad. I've condensed it all onto one line.
The "Physical Abuse Haunts Michael Schiavo", aside from being obvious propoganda, adds nothing that doesn't appear in the other links.
WorldNetDaily is a pretty horribly far-right news site, but I left the article in since it's reasonably well written, and to maintain balance.
The freep.com editorial isn't all that good, but there needs to be some compensating POV in here somewhere. Perhaps when better sources for this issue and side are found, this can be removed.
The next two links are propoganda with no new facts. Removed.
The disability-rights activist site is irrelevant to this topic, and I removed it. The same goes for the rambling monologue of Stephen Drake. The Wesley J. Smith articles are less "references" than "blatant propoganda", which add nothing to the discussion except a whole bunch of vitriol. I removed them.
This gets things down to a VERY manageable set of six links. Given that there seems to be clear consensus for changes to the rather tatty, messy collection that we had before, given that the list keeps getting cut down to size, I'm going to go ahead and do a little pruning. I'll try to watch this section like a hawk to ensure that it doesn't become bloated with irrelevant links once more.
MichelleG 13:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).
I have removed the italicized summaries of the externally linked articles. They were insanely not NPOV, and also not part of standard Wiki practice. You've fought your battle to get the links you want on the page. Just let them speak for themselves, please. Tcassedy 09:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I recall, the "italicized summaries" were actually mostly (or maybe entirely?) just the subtitles from the articles themselves, not my editorializing, but I'll accept this. NCdave 04:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just did a little survey of the featured external links. I counted nine links that are essentially neutral--they provide information, and do not appear to feature any of the more outlandish accusations or claims, usually "Michael beat Terri" thing. In this category fell the statements of the two guardians ad litem, despite the fact that they do reach conclusions about Terri's situation, as did links to the text of the decision by the Florida Supreme Court voiding Terri's Law, as well as the text of Terri's Law itself.
I counted thirteen links that oppose the removal of Terri's nutritional tube, some of which also attack Michael Schiavo in harsh terms. It should be noted that for this category, I counted both the four Village Voice articles and the fourteen (!) Wesley J. Smith editorials as one anti-removal source each.
I counted two editorials/articles in favor of Michael Schiavo's position, that is, that Terri's feeding tube ought to be removed. Given that anti-removal sources outnumber both neutral informational resources and pro-removal editorials combined, what we have here is at least the appearance of a problem. I notice that earlier in the discussion, some of these links have been red-flagged, but that NCDave has, by and large, refused to allow any of the anti-removal links to be excised.
As a preliminary matter to fixing what appears to be a bias towards external linking to anti-removal sites in this article, I would suggest that we first organize these links into the three categories that I describe, as the long, disorganized list we currently have is simply confusing and a little daunting. If NCDave wants to dispute any of my classifications, he's welcome to do so, but I think that anyone reading those links with an open mind would come up with a count that is very similar to mine. SS451 03:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Here is my proposed revision of the External Links section. I'll also note that one of the two links in support of Michael Schiavo's position (or at least described as opposing Terri's Law) was broken, so that leaves thirteen anti-removal links and one pro-removal link. I haven't read that last, a Baltimore Sun editorial, because the site requires registration, but I've given the descriptor included with the link the benefit of the doubt. Proposed organization follows:
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I added the fact that most of her cortex is gone, as the citation states. Saying the whole cortex is gone is misleading.
---MDW
Bertrand Russell said that "the smart man says one thing, and the stupid men translate that into something their minds can understand." That's what happened here: Everyone who is screaming for this dead person to continue to be artificially maintained is absolutely and certainly (and most unfortunately) religious.
I am not sure how you claim everyone who supports keeping Terri alive is religious. I am an atheist and I see the actions on both sides illogical. The core issue is the diagosis, that she is PVS. There has been lot of medical experts who claim otherwise and it is accepted, that PVS s a difficult diagnosis to make with very high probablity of error. How do you claim that she is already dead (no consciousness) when that is part of the core issue being debated ?
--AA
To offer a little clarity: a long, long time ago, before science had developed and the mind was still primitive, the world was difficult to explain. So, people began to worship the planets, the stars, trees, mountains, animals and such. As the human mind evolved, the propensity for anthropomorphism developed as well. Suddenly, there were gods too. It didn't take too long to make a war of it: "my god/gods is/are better than your god/gods," etc...
The next thing that happened is that even though the average individual remained fairly stupid, they began to believe that they knew "the truth": an immaterial subjective, perceptual POV. Most of them are still unwilling to accept reality. They prefer faith, but faith has no fact. Of course, the rest of us know that god is dead. Not it was ever alive.
Since Merriam-Webster is probably the best comprehensive source for the English language, I have included this definition, which I'm sure you excluded purposely since it did not fit your (NCdave) intent:
2vegetable Function: noun 1 : a usually herbaceous plant (as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part; also : such an edible part 2 : a person whose mental and physical functioning is severely impaired and especially who requires supportive measures (as intravenous feeding or mechanical ventilation) to survive
This woman is already dead. She couldn't even think "Ouch!," if you gave her a vivisection. cyboar 05:43, 20 Mar 2005 (PST)
Cybor, It looks like you are basing your arguments on the claim that she has no consciousness. It is one of the disputed points. Hence your description has POV. --AA
Despite this, after reading the article, I think there's a lot of POV in it on both sides.
Pending consensus, I'm going to chop out all the stuff about Michael Schiavo. My reasoning being that this is the article about Terri Schiavo - a lot of the stuff about her husband is irrelevant character smearing. Obviously some detail is pertinent, but not the extended commentary currently on the page.
MichelleG 12:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).
The original diagnosis was that her condition was caused by her bulemia. I think that some people are confusing the issue of whether or not a guardian has the right to make certain medical decisions versus whether or not Michael Schiavo is a suitable guardian for his wife. If you don't believe that anyone has the right to have feeding tubes removed from another person, then it is irrelevant whether or not Michael Schiavo is/was a good husband. If you agree that a well-intentioned guardian has that right, but suspect that MS ought to be disqualified, than the argument should be centering around the issue of custody and the accusations against him should be examined and resolved. To argue that a guardian would have the right, but we are barring it in this case due to unsubstantiated claims is to make this already difficult situation chaotic. Anyone who disagreed with a decision could highjack the authority by alleging malice without having to prove it. (Note that I do not take a position on MS's fitness as a guardian.) 152.163.100.9 23:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I did a little autumn cleaning on the links, in honour of it not being summer for a few minutes now:
The first three laws are all hard links with good data. I kept them.
The Village Voice articles are rather good, but the way they are formatted was bad. I've condensed it all onto one line.
The "Physical Abuse Haunts Michael Schiavo", aside from being obvious propoganda, adds nothing that doesn't appear in the other links.
WorldNetDaily is a pretty horribly far-right news site, but I left the article in since it's reasonably well written, and to maintain balance.
The freep.com editorial isn't all that good, but there needs to be some compensating POV in here somewhere. Perhaps when better sources for this issue and side are found, this can be removed.
The next two links are propoganda with no new facts. Removed.
The disability-rights activist site is irrelevant to this topic, and I removed it. The same goes for the rambling monologue of Stephen Drake. The Wesley J. Smith articles are less "references" than "blatant propoganda", which add nothing to the discussion except a whole bunch of vitriol. I removed them.
This gets things down to a VERY manageable set of six links. Given that there seems to be clear consensus for changes to the rather tatty, messy collection that we had before, given that the list keeps getting cut down to size, I'm going to go ahead and do a little pruning. I'll try to watch this section like a hawk to ensure that it doesn't become bloated with irrelevant links once more.
MichelleG 13:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).
I have removed the italicized summaries of the externally linked articles. They were insanely not NPOV, and also not part of standard Wiki practice. You've fought your battle to get the links you want on the page. Just let them speak for themselves, please. Tcassedy 09:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I recall, the "italicized summaries" were actually mostly (or maybe entirely?) just the subtitles from the articles themselves, not my editorializing, but I'll accept this. NCdave 04:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just did a little survey of the featured external links. I counted nine links that are essentially neutral--they provide information, and do not appear to feature any of the more outlandish accusations or claims, usually "Michael beat Terri" thing. In this category fell the statements of the two guardians ad litem, despite the fact that they do reach conclusions about Terri's situation, as did links to the text of the decision by the Florida Supreme Court voiding Terri's Law, as well as the text of Terri's Law itself.
I counted thirteen links that oppose the removal of Terri's nutritional tube, some of which also attack Michael Schiavo in harsh terms. It should be noted that for this category, I counted both the four Village Voice articles and the fourteen (!) Wesley J. Smith editorials as one anti-removal source each.
I counted two editorials/articles in favor of Michael Schiavo's position, that is, that Terri's feeding tube ought to be removed. Given that anti-removal sources outnumber both neutral informational resources and pro-removal editorials combined, what we have here is at least the appearance of a problem. I notice that earlier in the discussion, some of these links have been red-flagged, but that NCDave has, by and large, refused to allow any of the anti-removal links to be excised.
As a preliminary matter to fixing what appears to be a bias towards external linking to anti-removal sites in this article, I would suggest that we first organize these links into the three categories that I describe, as the long, disorganized list we currently have is simply confusing and a little daunting. If NCDave wants to dispute any of my classifications, he's welcome to do so, but I think that anyone reading those links with an open mind would come up with a count that is very similar to mine. SS451 03:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Here is my proposed revision of the External Links section. I'll also note that one of the two links in support of Michael Schiavo's position (or at least described as opposing Terri's Law) was broken, so that leaves thirteen anti-removal links and one pro-removal link. I haven't read that last, a Baltimore Sun editorial, because the site requires registration, but I've given the descriptor included with the link the benefit of the doubt. Proposed organization follows: