![]() | 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. |
Didn't Ludacris write a song about Terri? Should that be mentioned in the pop culture section? 75.60.169.46 ( talk) 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC) My mistake - it was not done by Ludacris. 75.60.169.46 ( talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving this note because I changed the summary to remove the statement that the federal law was struck down; since another user put that statement back in, I thought I'd explain my change.
Though the federal district court and the Eleventh Circuit declined to issue a TRO, both courts reached this result without determining whether Pub. L. No. 109-3 was constitutional or not. The district court stated that while "there may be substantial issues concerning the constitutionality of the Act, for purposes of considering temporary injunctive relief, the Act is presumed to be constitutional." 357 F. Supp. 2d 1378, page 1383. The Eleventh Circuit also did not decide whether the law was constitutional: "Defendants contend that the legislation is so extraordinary that it is unconstitutional in several respects. We need not decide that question." 403 F.3d 1223, pages 1226-1227.
Note that one Eleventh Circuit judge did later express the view that the law was unconstitutional (404 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2005)), but he was not speaking for the court. I'm not aware of any later case holding that the law was unconstitutional.-- 68.162.33.170 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Could anyone address the instance where Terri Schiavo was supposedly laughing? Alan Keyes put it up on his website. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.251.89.74 (
talk)
20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be trivial but I think that the sentence
"The manner of death was certified as "undetermined"."
needs citation. -- Kushal t 16:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Propaganda regarding the 'vegetative state' and also the photograph of Teri's brain as irrelevant. This woman was literally starved and dehydrated to death in this country under a judicial order, while still communicative and breathing without any artificial life support, other than basic sustenance - food and water.
Everything else is irrelevant. It was judicial and spousal murder, pure and simple.
You're damn right it was. Since when is it constitutional to kill someone who has not given permission through DNR?!?! If she did not say this in writing, then how is it legal to simply assume she wanted the plug pulled? I have had family members who did give permission for DNR, and therefore, there wishes were granted as such. Judicial and spousal murder is exactly the correct terminology. Communist liberal judges and activists allowed Terri Schiavo to exist without the treatment she was Constitutionally promised and her husband just wanted the money he raped from the lawsuit against the doctor who he claimed failed to diagnose her with bulemia (the doctor correctly did not diagnose her with bulemia, since she did not have bulemia.) I hope Michael Schiavo and those communist judges rot in hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.211.18 ( talk) 05:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Proganda. Both the commentary, and moral and legal conclusions. This disabled woman was literally starved and dehydrated to death, and posting photographs of her brain does not excuse what actually ocurred. She was communicative, and not being kept artifically alive except with the provision of basic sustenance - food and water, not 'artifically' in any respect, since even premature infants are hydrated and given good intravenously.
Whatever excuses are being made, she was judicially murdered, pure and simple.
It is a good section, but I was thinking... couldn't it use a mention of peoples reaction to the ruling in the Schiavo case? If I remember correctly, people were protseting outside of the hospital where Terri Schiavo was when the tube was removed. 67.189.228.127 ( talk) 12:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe this article is biased, especially in posting the photographs of her brain. Food and water, especially, are basic sustenance not "extraordinary" life sustaining needs - even an infant needs water to survive. She lasted 14 days, when if you check with medical experts, most people could not last seven days without water. The withholding of water caused, since your body is 89% water, deprived her organs of the needed sustenance to survive, causing progressive organ shutdown. Of course her brain was half it size, anyone's would be after 14 days of water deprivation.
This article is lopsided, and doesn't acknowledge the fact that this woman was, for all intents and purposes, murdered by judical fiat in the most painful way possible. The liberals that care so much for the whales, supported this as a "privacy" and "right to choose" case. It was not. Also, she was a devout Catholic, and in a nation where religious freedom is a Bill of Rights protection, her religious beliefs were not even considered. To a Catholic, such an act would engender suicide, a mortal sin. As a devout Catholic, this woman would never have consented to such a henious act. Her ex-husband was a bigamist at the time also, under the common law, and stand to inherit the rest of the proceeds from the medical malpractice awarded which also was not given credence by the court. This article is biased, and clearly off the mark in what should have occurred in a contested issue as this case was. She last 14 days, without any food or water at all, so what does that say about Teri's will to live. As far as hopeless, medical procedures and gains occur every day. She was 39. Disgusting....and actually what the Nazi's did to the concentration camp victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.23.227 ( talk) 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Move it to "Terri Schiavo affair" or an article about the court case. Cover the event, not the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.249.64 ( talk) 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please rename/move this page to Terri Sciavo case.-- Ethics2med ( talk) 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I've redirected it back here. Note E2M's block log please. — Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering as to what the consensus would be to add biographical details to this article? I realize that the subject of this article is not entirely Terri Schiavo herself but rather the scandal concerning her, yet still I think it would be valuable to have some background information on her life perhaps to be included in the 'Background' section. Views, anyone? Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 23:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Due to an ongoing high level of anon editor vandalism I have semiprotected the page for 3 days.
Looking at this history I hope it won't be necessary to make this permanent, hopefully the current surge of attention fades. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
What is this bullshit? There is no painkiller that can alleviate the feeling of thirst. It sounds like the typical biased opinion by doctors that their patients "feel no pain". Did they ask them? Wow this is far out... T.R. 87.59.77.244 ( talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Her friends and family who saw her said that she was suffering. Her attorney, Barbara Weller, testified under oath that she communicated with Terri, and others "on Terri's side" said the same. It is easy to dismiss these facts as delusion. However, is that attitude objective or is it self-serving? What could the motivation be for forbidding videos in the hospital room, and limiting visitation? The de facto ex-husband, Mike, might assert that this was Terri's wish, meaning what? That Terri, already gone he claims, would not want her apparent agony to reflect poorly on her husband? Or, would not want her peaceful and serene death to remove the controversy from her passing? Or above all else she did not want her faithful shell of a body to be involved in a media circus? Or what did Mike think that Terri's wish was? Had she no thought for him, or as little as he for her? ( Martin | talk • contribs 05:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC))
A more flattering picture should be used or at least should be at the top. While her "life" after 1990 became the phenomenon that requires this whole wiki-page thus legitimizing the vegetative pictures, the page should also also give some focus to Terri Schiavo as she was before her departure. Delltuazon ( talk) 09:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case is an
orphaned article. Please decide where to add one or more links to it.
--
Wavelength (
talk)
23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I get the feeling that the author of this sentence is in the "some think" group. Isn't there another way to put this?
"Some deplore it as a case that went against decades of progress that ha(ve) enabled individuals the freedom to control and limit medical interventions performed on them. "(
Martin |
talk •
contribs
21:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
Terri Schiavo's father, Robert Schindler, died at the age of 71, on August 29, 2009, of a heart ailment in a hospital at St. Petersburg, Florida. A brief obit was published in the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2009, page B-6. 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
"After a successful seven-year long legal effort. . ." doesn't sound that good a way to start an article, it doesn't seem encyclopedic; it feels like it belongs in the middle. I think intro paragraph should be reworded/rearranged. What does everyone else think? - MK ( t/ c) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 52/GA1
"Terri Schiavo collapsed on February 25, 1990, resulting in 15 years of institutionalization. Her legal case, from 1998 to 2005, concerned whether Terri, diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), should live or die." - The article needs to explain who Terri Schiavo is, and what the context of her collapse was. Very sudden, disorienting entrance at beginning of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benji9072 ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
According to this website (the official page of Terri Schiavo) she was not dying or ill. She did not PVS. She had no equipment keeping her alive, except food and water which was given to her in a feeding tube because the doctor thought it was safest to do so that way.
This article is biased in my oppinion because it does not respond to these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.22.11 ( talk) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The domain terrisfight.org is owned by Suzanne Schindler Carr Vitadamo, Terri Schiavo's sister. Obviously she is aligned with the elder Schindlers. Therefore anything and everything on that web site has to be assumed to be biased. Paleolith ( talk) 01:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
text deleted
Schiavo's husband trained and became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse. In 2004, he was hired as a nursing supervisor at the Pinellas County Jail in Florida. citation needed
It does not fit in the paragraph: rehabilitation efforts, and not clear how it is relevant. ( Martin | talk • contribs 07:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
re: PAIN - replaced into article ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
it starts: she came home (to the schindlers house?) .. from where? apparently from College Park, but when did she first go to college park? was it from Humana to college Park? how long at each? ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
Michael Schiavo should redirect here, following a merge of any appropriate information from that article into this one. Michael is only notable for his participation in this case, and the article is almost entirely about this case. 63.104.174.146 ( talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Juanm ( talk • contribs • count) 10:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
why is it "so-called"? Who called it this? The implication of "so-called" is that some call it this, but others call it something else. If the article wants to modify the memo this way, it should be explained. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 16:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding: "Although there was concern that Schiavo would experience significant symptoms from dehydration with the removal of the feeding tube, studies have shown that patients who have their feeding tubes removed, such as the case of Schiavo, usually have a peaceful death.[58][59]"
This sentence and its citations have three problems which may indicate lack of objectivity.
I. What does "significant symptoms from dehydration" mean? Physical effects/corrolaries, or the experience of pain? The commonly understood meaning of "symptoms" is physical effects/corrolaries. Dr. Mirarchi cited in [58] says, "Over time, the patient becomes more and more dehydrated, stops discharging urine and eventually develops kidney failure. When this happens, death is generally a few days away. Patients at this point are uremic -- filled with bodily toxins -- and are unaware of their surroundings. They develop electrolyte imbalances that eventually cause an abnormal beating of the heart. The heart will then stop and the patient will die." These are significant physical effects/corrolaries. So presumably the author does not mean "physical effects/corrolaries" but "distress" or "pain". I believe sources could be found that there was concern that Schiavo would experience distress or pain. Why isn't this what the sentence states?
II. What does "peaceful death" mean? Painless or low-pain? Unconscious? Motionless? Emotionally or spiritially content? If Schaivo was in a persistent vegitative state, how does this concept even apply? "Peaceful death" is a subjective, not scientific or verifiable conscept. Instead it is an ethical phrase used to connote humane actions.
III. To make a valid point with this sentence, the author should provide evidence to support the view (I don't say "conclusion" because "humaneness" is a subjective concept) that dehydration is a humane means of death, eg., along utilitarian bases (providing evidence of lack of/minimimal amount of pain experienced). The sources currently cited do not do so. A.Citation 58 includes opinions of two doctors. Three points are made, none of which provides evidence of lack of pain or low pain either for a majority of the time before death, or for a majority of patients.
1. Dr. Mirachi: "The process of starving to death seems very barbaric but in actuality is very peaceful. [And later:] During ketosis, the body begins to use fat and muscle as a fuel source. In advanced cases of ketosis, the nervous system response is dulled, and patients rarely feel pain, hunger or thirst. There is also some evidence that ketosis can produce a state of well-being or mild euphoria." This begs the question, what happens in the first stages of ketosis before the nervous system is dulled, and for those (apparently an unquantified majority) who do not experience euphoria? 2. Dr. Lynne indicates the time until death lasts from a few days to twenty days. No percentages or average are given. 3. According to Dr. Lynne: If Schaivo was unable to swallow and if nothing was offered by mouth, the patient may suffer less. She offers an opinion, stating lack of scientific basis with the phrase, "as far as anyone can tell": "If she's unable to swallow anything, the course toward dying, so far as anyone can tell, is fairly comfortable." As a basis for this conclusion she only explains that "Giving a patient water, for example, may prolong the process. Going without water makes it more gentle. Allowing chemicals [in the blood] to cause arrhythmia is more merciful." Thus her argument is not based on, for example, studies of brainwaves which indicate pain or lack thereof, but instead a subjective and arguable value judgment that fewer days with more intense toxicity resulting in a quicker death is more merciful than more days at a lower level of toxicity. How does this support the conclusion that this is a "peaceful death"? The same source [58] includes comments from observers some of whom reported evidence of pain or distress and others of whom did not.
B. Citation 59 gives the abstract of an article only; the full text of the article is not currently available at the webpage cited. It is impossible to review the article to determine how it supports the sentence which cites it.
Suggested edits: 1.Correct the citation for [59] to link directly to the article text and confirm that it supports the view that death by dehydration is humane. If not, remove [59]. 2. Change to: "Schiavo's parents and protestors were concerned that Schiavo would physically suffer as the result of the symptoms of dehydration with the removal of the feeding tube[Citation needed]. Some doctors believe that patients who have their feeding tubes removed, such as the case of Schiavo, usually have a 'peaceful' death[58][59]. A few observers of patients dying from dehydration have reported symptoms apparently indicating pain or distress, while a few others have not[58]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.28.33 ( talk) 02:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The lead paragraph mentions bulima, and the final paragraph mentions bulimia again, saying it was ruled out. My understanding is that the teeth are damaged by long term vomiting from the stomach acid. Is "bulimia" mentioned only because anorexia is often mentioned with bulimia, or is there some basis for mentioning bulimia that is not explained by anorexia? perhaps someone more closely associated with the behaviors might comment from personal experience (only as a guide, references could then be sought to support or not support the comment) how long those activities can be hid, and any clues. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC))
shouldn't this article also reference Karen Ann Quinlan at least as an external reference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Ann_Quinlan -- Patbahn ( talk) 23:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk · contribs) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I've done an initial read of the first part the article, but I've not checked any references, and I've fixed a few "minor problems" on the way (I'll say more on this below and later).
Overall, the article appears to be at or about GA level, but I suspect that some work will be needed in places to bring it up to the standard of WP:WIAGA. For example: on the basis of my quick read, there appears to be information in the WP:Lead that does not seem to be in the article and the opposite case (information in the article that is not summarised in the lead). There also seems to be some "strange system" of wikilinking - terms such as apartment and firefighter that don't seem all that important to the context of this article were wikilinked (I've taken these two links out); some medical term were not wikilinked and some technical terms seemed to be be wikilinked at every occurrence (even in the same section - WP:OVERLINKING).
I'm now going to work my way through the article: starting at the Background section, working my way down the the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. This may take a day or so (well at least the rest of today and tomorrow). Pyrotec ( talk) 21:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
At this stage there are a few minor "problems" that need to be addressed before I can award GA, so I'm putting this review On Hold to give time for these to be addressed. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I've covered all the "problems". Ace-o-aces ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history here there appears to be some indication of an edit war going on with you and Psalm84, but I might be mistaken. If there is found to be an edit war, I'm entitled to fail the nomination under WP:WIAGA clause 5. Having got this far I'd rather not use clause 5 and fail it, however there is clearly new material in the article: the Medicolegal issues section is new and the Public opinion and activism section has been expanded. Consequently, these two sections and the WP:Lead are going to have to be reviewed. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've already put this review On Hold on 18th November for one week, so I'm going to "reset the clock" and consider that the "hold" has started from today.
At this point, I'm basically awaiting some clarifications; some reconsideration of the material in Palm Sunday Compromise together with the material in Disability rights sections, and is the balance OK?; and, some citations. These "actions" appear to be relatively minor (I can't comment about the work need to find citations, as I have no expertise in US sources), so I would hope to be able to grant this article GA-status in early December (that's Saturday, at the earliest). Pyrotec ( talk) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Let me put the point another way. In the Final feeding tube removal and federal involvement section there is a subsection Palm Sunday Compromise and in the Medicolegal issues section there is a subsection Disability rights half of which, the second paragraph, is almost a repeat of what is in Palm Sunday Compromise. Both state that the Republicans initiated it, and "names names"; one has it a means of attacking an named Democrat Senator the other has the use of a named Democrat to ease its passage. I don't see why some, but not all, of the new material added during the review is needed when it duplicates existing material. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
In part due to the length of time it has taken to get this far, I'm awarding this article GA-status. The use of the brain scans image needs to be urgently addressed, and if the problems can't be addressed it will need to be removed from the article. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Good work everybody! Now let's get this thing to featured status! (Maybe after a little break) Ace-o-aces ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This was part of the case, but this section is longer than the ENTIRE section on activism in the main article. A decision was made that most information on activism and public opinion be placed in a separate article. Most of this section belongs there, not in the main article. Ace-o-aces ( talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I've added mention that Michael Schiavo was represented by Felos, which was surprisingly missing from the article. He wasn't mentioned a single time. I also mentioned the landmark Florida case Browning since he was notable for it and it had lot of direct bearing on the Schiavo case. Psalm84 ( talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding two recent edits, one involving legislators following Schiavo's death, the other on the Browning case:
On the first, I'm looking for more about what happened with the proposed legislation and info along those lines, if it can be found. Until then I won't oppose that passage being removed.
On the second, no, the Browning case is definitely not outside the scope of this article since the article's goal is to bring people understanding of this case. It's not extensively discussed but only a short summary is given. "Right to die" cases have changed how people are treated and Browning is a landmark case and was essential to the Schiavo ruling. Including it to help people better understand the case is exactly what WP is for. Right now, though, that's a type of problem I see in the article. The article doesn't clarify many things, leaves out a lot of pertinent information and just isn't very readable. The example of Felos completely missing from the article is just one example. Felos made many media appearances in the case so his role would be familiar to most people, and he did play a major one, yet that's been missing. People expecting to read a well-rounded account of the case would expect some information about him and explaining his role. That's not the only omission, and leaving out information like that makes the article, as it is right now, not worth reading. It doesn't connect the dots in the case. Psalm84 ( talk) 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if an info box for a person Is appropriate giving that the Article is about a legal case. Perhaps it would be more fitting to have an info box about a court cases and have Schiavo picture some where else. If no one objects in a week ill go ahead with the change. Thank you. -- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 20:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Neither of these references appear to support any material in the paragraph in which it is used [4]. I propose they be removed and am posting for discussion before removal. Ward20 ( talk) 04:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
References
Ought we update the area related to "Developments after the case" to add the controversy over Jeb Bush's use of her case in his campaign advertisements?
Essentially, her case is being used as a political ploy and it seems noteworthy but I don't know just how to word it in a way that is unbiased. RedDarling ( talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This article links to the anti-abortion movement not the pro-life movement? It's weird and irrelevant. L32007 ( talk) 15:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
No mention of Michael Schiavo's lover and children on the side, and thus his additional conflict of interest regarding the health and survival of his wife. That's balanced. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't happen to relate to the upcoming presidential election does it? -unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.212.175.30 ( talk) 20:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
just looked it up - what a psycho you have to be to call it "on the side" about someone forced to live "married" for 15 years by a psycho governor with a "president" on the side!!!! -Jonathan M. Stone
I sure am glad Wikipedia is attracting people who can manage to discuss things relevant to the idea of making complete and unbiased articles. What a difference eight years makes. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 09:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It can be mentioned in a neutral manner. I would think the section on the relationship between Michael and his in-laws would be the proper section for this Ace-o-aces2 ( talk) 00:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I've included some detail about Nurse Iyer's allegations. I understand the section on her claims was removed since they are dramatically at odds with known facts in the case, but since the Judge's statements specifically addressing her allegations are included, we should have something about what those statements were. Otherwise, we should just remove all specific mentions of Iyer. Ace-o-aces2 ( talk) 17:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The introductory section has been tagged with Confusing because it introduces several individuals with the surname 'Schiavo' and then refers to them by surname. It is unclear who is being referred to, and without personal understanding of the case, I cannot make clarification. A user who has a better understanding of what happened could help resolve this tag by changing the text to use full names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.11.38 ( talk) 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the infobox be {{ Infobox court case}} or {{ Infobox SCOTUS case}}? If there is more than one case then just pick the last one.-- 172.56.33.159 ( talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
-SCOTUS never took the case. Ace-o-aces2 ( talk) 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
How about US 11th Cir. SCHIAVO SCHINDLER v. SCHIAVO No. 05-11628. , Decided: March 25, 2005 ? That looks like the last case. "Plaintiffs (First Amended) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 34) is DENIED." The article has never mentioned this case. There is this from March 23, http://www.openjurist.org/403/f3d/1223/schiavo-schindler-v-schiavo-w . -- 172.56.0.100 ( talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-It's not mentioned directly, but the article says that all federal appeals where denied. I have not problem with putting specific information about the case in the body of the article, but I don't see why we need an info box. Ace-o-aces2 ( talk) 16:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we should have a section early on that cites each court case. Maybe not the TROs or appeals (which were all denied), but all of the cases where discovery occurred, with links to all of the decisions. You know: like an order of battle. Those decisions will review all of the relevant evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.116 ( talk) 14:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
EARLY LIFE It states she grew up in the Philadelphia area, though it says she went to Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School which is in Indianapolis Indiana. Is this an error?
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidal prophet 03:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Terri Schiavo case → Case of Terri Schiavo – Use the "Case of" prefix is more in line with the naming style of WP:DEATHS. We should also renamed Category:Terri Schiavo case likewise. Pages777 ( talk) 04:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Didn't Ludacris write a song about Terri? Should that be mentioned in the pop culture section? 75.60.169.46 ( talk) 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC) My mistake - it was not done by Ludacris. 75.60.169.46 ( talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving this note because I changed the summary to remove the statement that the federal law was struck down; since another user put that statement back in, I thought I'd explain my change.
Though the federal district court and the Eleventh Circuit declined to issue a TRO, both courts reached this result without determining whether Pub. L. No. 109-3 was constitutional or not. The district court stated that while "there may be substantial issues concerning the constitutionality of the Act, for purposes of considering temporary injunctive relief, the Act is presumed to be constitutional." 357 F. Supp. 2d 1378, page 1383. The Eleventh Circuit also did not decide whether the law was constitutional: "Defendants contend that the legislation is so extraordinary that it is unconstitutional in several respects. We need not decide that question." 403 F.3d 1223, pages 1226-1227.
Note that one Eleventh Circuit judge did later express the view that the law was unconstitutional (404 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2005)), but he was not speaking for the court. I'm not aware of any later case holding that the law was unconstitutional.-- 68.162.33.170 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Could anyone address the instance where Terri Schiavo was supposedly laughing? Alan Keyes put it up on his website. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.251.89.74 (
talk)
20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be trivial but I think that the sentence
"The manner of death was certified as "undetermined"."
needs citation. -- Kushal t 16:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Propaganda regarding the 'vegetative state' and also the photograph of Teri's brain as irrelevant. This woman was literally starved and dehydrated to death in this country under a judicial order, while still communicative and breathing without any artificial life support, other than basic sustenance - food and water.
Everything else is irrelevant. It was judicial and spousal murder, pure and simple.
You're damn right it was. Since when is it constitutional to kill someone who has not given permission through DNR?!?! If she did not say this in writing, then how is it legal to simply assume she wanted the plug pulled? I have had family members who did give permission for DNR, and therefore, there wishes were granted as such. Judicial and spousal murder is exactly the correct terminology. Communist liberal judges and activists allowed Terri Schiavo to exist without the treatment she was Constitutionally promised and her husband just wanted the money he raped from the lawsuit against the doctor who he claimed failed to diagnose her with bulemia (the doctor correctly did not diagnose her with bulemia, since she did not have bulemia.) I hope Michael Schiavo and those communist judges rot in hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.211.18 ( talk) 05:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Proganda. Both the commentary, and moral and legal conclusions. This disabled woman was literally starved and dehydrated to death, and posting photographs of her brain does not excuse what actually ocurred. She was communicative, and not being kept artifically alive except with the provision of basic sustenance - food and water, not 'artifically' in any respect, since even premature infants are hydrated and given good intravenously.
Whatever excuses are being made, she was judicially murdered, pure and simple.
It is a good section, but I was thinking... couldn't it use a mention of peoples reaction to the ruling in the Schiavo case? If I remember correctly, people were protseting outside of the hospital where Terri Schiavo was when the tube was removed. 67.189.228.127 ( talk) 12:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe this article is biased, especially in posting the photographs of her brain. Food and water, especially, are basic sustenance not "extraordinary" life sustaining needs - even an infant needs water to survive. She lasted 14 days, when if you check with medical experts, most people could not last seven days without water. The withholding of water caused, since your body is 89% water, deprived her organs of the needed sustenance to survive, causing progressive organ shutdown. Of course her brain was half it size, anyone's would be after 14 days of water deprivation.
This article is lopsided, and doesn't acknowledge the fact that this woman was, for all intents and purposes, murdered by judical fiat in the most painful way possible. The liberals that care so much for the whales, supported this as a "privacy" and "right to choose" case. It was not. Also, she was a devout Catholic, and in a nation where religious freedom is a Bill of Rights protection, her religious beliefs were not even considered. To a Catholic, such an act would engender suicide, a mortal sin. As a devout Catholic, this woman would never have consented to such a henious act. Her ex-husband was a bigamist at the time also, under the common law, and stand to inherit the rest of the proceeds from the medical malpractice awarded which also was not given credence by the court. This article is biased, and clearly off the mark in what should have occurred in a contested issue as this case was. She last 14 days, without any food or water at all, so what does that say about Teri's will to live. As far as hopeless, medical procedures and gains occur every day. She was 39. Disgusting....and actually what the Nazi's did to the concentration camp victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.23.227 ( talk) 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Move it to "Terri Schiavo affair" or an article about the court case. Cover the event, not the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.249.64 ( talk) 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please rename/move this page to Terri Sciavo case.-- Ethics2med ( talk) 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I've redirected it back here. Note E2M's block log please. — Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering as to what the consensus would be to add biographical details to this article? I realize that the subject of this article is not entirely Terri Schiavo herself but rather the scandal concerning her, yet still I think it would be valuable to have some background information on her life perhaps to be included in the 'Background' section. Views, anyone? Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 23:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Due to an ongoing high level of anon editor vandalism I have semiprotected the page for 3 days.
Looking at this history I hope it won't be necessary to make this permanent, hopefully the current surge of attention fades. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
What is this bullshit? There is no painkiller that can alleviate the feeling of thirst. It sounds like the typical biased opinion by doctors that their patients "feel no pain". Did they ask them? Wow this is far out... T.R. 87.59.77.244 ( talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Her friends and family who saw her said that she was suffering. Her attorney, Barbara Weller, testified under oath that she communicated with Terri, and others "on Terri's side" said the same. It is easy to dismiss these facts as delusion. However, is that attitude objective or is it self-serving? What could the motivation be for forbidding videos in the hospital room, and limiting visitation? The de facto ex-husband, Mike, might assert that this was Terri's wish, meaning what? That Terri, already gone he claims, would not want her apparent agony to reflect poorly on her husband? Or, would not want her peaceful and serene death to remove the controversy from her passing? Or above all else she did not want her faithful shell of a body to be involved in a media circus? Or what did Mike think that Terri's wish was? Had she no thought for him, or as little as he for her? ( Martin | talk • contribs 05:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC))
A more flattering picture should be used or at least should be at the top. While her "life" after 1990 became the phenomenon that requires this whole wiki-page thus legitimizing the vegetative pictures, the page should also also give some focus to Terri Schiavo as she was before her departure. Delltuazon ( talk) 09:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case is an
orphaned article. Please decide where to add one or more links to it.
--
Wavelength (
talk)
23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I get the feeling that the author of this sentence is in the "some think" group. Isn't there another way to put this?
"Some deplore it as a case that went against decades of progress that ha(ve) enabled individuals the freedom to control and limit medical interventions performed on them. "(
Martin |
talk •
contribs
21:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
Terri Schiavo's father, Robert Schindler, died at the age of 71, on August 29, 2009, of a heart ailment in a hospital at St. Petersburg, Florida. A brief obit was published in the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2009, page B-6. 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
"After a successful seven-year long legal effort. . ." doesn't sound that good a way to start an article, it doesn't seem encyclopedic; it feels like it belongs in the middle. I think intro paragraph should be reworded/rearranged. What does everyone else think? - MK ( t/ c) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 52/GA1
"Terri Schiavo collapsed on February 25, 1990, resulting in 15 years of institutionalization. Her legal case, from 1998 to 2005, concerned whether Terri, diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), should live or die." - The article needs to explain who Terri Schiavo is, and what the context of her collapse was. Very sudden, disorienting entrance at beginning of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benji9072 ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
According to this website (the official page of Terri Schiavo) she was not dying or ill. She did not PVS. She had no equipment keeping her alive, except food and water which was given to her in a feeding tube because the doctor thought it was safest to do so that way.
This article is biased in my oppinion because it does not respond to these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.22.11 ( talk) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The domain terrisfight.org is owned by Suzanne Schindler Carr Vitadamo, Terri Schiavo's sister. Obviously she is aligned with the elder Schindlers. Therefore anything and everything on that web site has to be assumed to be biased. Paleolith ( talk) 01:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
text deleted
Schiavo's husband trained and became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse. In 2004, he was hired as a nursing supervisor at the Pinellas County Jail in Florida. citation needed
It does not fit in the paragraph: rehabilitation efforts, and not clear how it is relevant. ( Martin | talk • contribs 07:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
re: PAIN - replaced into article ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
it starts: she came home (to the schindlers house?) .. from where? apparently from College Park, but when did she first go to college park? was it from Humana to college Park? how long at each? ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
Michael Schiavo should redirect here, following a merge of any appropriate information from that article into this one. Michael is only notable for his participation in this case, and the article is almost entirely about this case. 63.104.174.146 ( talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Juanm ( talk • contribs • count) 10:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
why is it "so-called"? Who called it this? The implication of "so-called" is that some call it this, but others call it something else. If the article wants to modify the memo this way, it should be explained. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 16:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding: "Although there was concern that Schiavo would experience significant symptoms from dehydration with the removal of the feeding tube, studies have shown that patients who have their feeding tubes removed, such as the case of Schiavo, usually have a peaceful death.[58][59]"
This sentence and its citations have three problems which may indicate lack of objectivity.
I. What does "significant symptoms from dehydration" mean? Physical effects/corrolaries, or the experience of pain? The commonly understood meaning of "symptoms" is physical effects/corrolaries. Dr. Mirarchi cited in [58] says, "Over time, the patient becomes more and more dehydrated, stops discharging urine and eventually develops kidney failure. When this happens, death is generally a few days away. Patients at this point are uremic -- filled with bodily toxins -- and are unaware of their surroundings. They develop electrolyte imbalances that eventually cause an abnormal beating of the heart. The heart will then stop and the patient will die." These are significant physical effects/corrolaries. So presumably the author does not mean "physical effects/corrolaries" but "distress" or "pain". I believe sources could be found that there was concern that Schiavo would experience distress or pain. Why isn't this what the sentence states?
II. What does "peaceful death" mean? Painless or low-pain? Unconscious? Motionless? Emotionally or spiritially content? If Schaivo was in a persistent vegitative state, how does this concept even apply? "Peaceful death" is a subjective, not scientific or verifiable conscept. Instead it is an ethical phrase used to connote humane actions.
III. To make a valid point with this sentence, the author should provide evidence to support the view (I don't say "conclusion" because "humaneness" is a subjective concept) that dehydration is a humane means of death, eg., along utilitarian bases (providing evidence of lack of/minimimal amount of pain experienced). The sources currently cited do not do so. A.Citation 58 includes opinions of two doctors. Three points are made, none of which provides evidence of lack of pain or low pain either for a majority of the time before death, or for a majority of patients.
1. Dr. Mirachi: "The process of starving to death seems very barbaric but in actuality is very peaceful. [And later:] During ketosis, the body begins to use fat and muscle as a fuel source. In advanced cases of ketosis, the nervous system response is dulled, and patients rarely feel pain, hunger or thirst. There is also some evidence that ketosis can produce a state of well-being or mild euphoria." This begs the question, what happens in the first stages of ketosis before the nervous system is dulled, and for those (apparently an unquantified majority) who do not experience euphoria? 2. Dr. Lynne indicates the time until death lasts from a few days to twenty days. No percentages or average are given. 3. According to Dr. Lynne: If Schaivo was unable to swallow and if nothing was offered by mouth, the patient may suffer less. She offers an opinion, stating lack of scientific basis with the phrase, "as far as anyone can tell": "If she's unable to swallow anything, the course toward dying, so far as anyone can tell, is fairly comfortable." As a basis for this conclusion she only explains that "Giving a patient water, for example, may prolong the process. Going without water makes it more gentle. Allowing chemicals [in the blood] to cause arrhythmia is more merciful." Thus her argument is not based on, for example, studies of brainwaves which indicate pain or lack thereof, but instead a subjective and arguable value judgment that fewer days with more intense toxicity resulting in a quicker death is more merciful than more days at a lower level of toxicity. How does this support the conclusion that this is a "peaceful death"? The same source [58] includes comments from observers some of whom reported evidence of pain or distress and others of whom did not.
B. Citation 59 gives the abstract of an article only; the full text of the article is not currently available at the webpage cited. It is impossible to review the article to determine how it supports the sentence which cites it.
Suggested edits: 1.Correct the citation for [59] to link directly to the article text and confirm that it supports the view that death by dehydration is humane. If not, remove [59]. 2. Change to: "Schiavo's parents and protestors were concerned that Schiavo would physically suffer as the result of the symptoms of dehydration with the removal of the feeding tube[Citation needed]. Some doctors believe that patients who have their feeding tubes removed, such as the case of Schiavo, usually have a 'peaceful' death[58][59]. A few observers of patients dying from dehydration have reported symptoms apparently indicating pain or distress, while a few others have not[58]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.28.33 ( talk) 02:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The lead paragraph mentions bulima, and the final paragraph mentions bulimia again, saying it was ruled out. My understanding is that the teeth are damaged by long term vomiting from the stomach acid. Is "bulimia" mentioned only because anorexia is often mentioned with bulimia, or is there some basis for mentioning bulimia that is not explained by anorexia? perhaps someone more closely associated with the behaviors might comment from personal experience (only as a guide, references could then be sought to support or not support the comment) how long those activities can be hid, and any clues. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC))
shouldn't this article also reference Karen Ann Quinlan at least as an external reference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Ann_Quinlan -- Patbahn ( talk) 23:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk · contribs) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I've done an initial read of the first part the article, but I've not checked any references, and I've fixed a few "minor problems" on the way (I'll say more on this below and later).
Overall, the article appears to be at or about GA level, but I suspect that some work will be needed in places to bring it up to the standard of WP:WIAGA. For example: on the basis of my quick read, there appears to be information in the WP:Lead that does not seem to be in the article and the opposite case (information in the article that is not summarised in the lead). There also seems to be some "strange system" of wikilinking - terms such as apartment and firefighter that don't seem all that important to the context of this article were wikilinked (I've taken these two links out); some medical term were not wikilinked and some technical terms seemed to be be wikilinked at every occurrence (even in the same section - WP:OVERLINKING).
I'm now going to work my way through the article: starting at the Background section, working my way down the the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. This may take a day or so (well at least the rest of today and tomorrow). Pyrotec ( talk) 21:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
At this stage there are a few minor "problems" that need to be addressed before I can award GA, so I'm putting this review On Hold to give time for these to be addressed. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I've covered all the "problems". Ace-o-aces ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history here there appears to be some indication of an edit war going on with you and Psalm84, but I might be mistaken. If there is found to be an edit war, I'm entitled to fail the nomination under WP:WIAGA clause 5. Having got this far I'd rather not use clause 5 and fail it, however there is clearly new material in the article: the Medicolegal issues section is new and the Public opinion and activism section has been expanded. Consequently, these two sections and the WP:Lead are going to have to be reviewed. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've already put this review On Hold on 18th November for one week, so I'm going to "reset the clock" and consider that the "hold" has started from today.
At this point, I'm basically awaiting some clarifications; some reconsideration of the material in Palm Sunday Compromise together with the material in Disability rights sections, and is the balance OK?; and, some citations. These "actions" appear to be relatively minor (I can't comment about the work need to find citations, as I have no expertise in US sources), so I would hope to be able to grant this article GA-status in early December (that's Saturday, at the earliest). Pyrotec ( talk) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Let me put the point another way. In the Final feeding tube removal and federal involvement section there is a subsection Palm Sunday Compromise and in the Medicolegal issues section there is a subsection Disability rights half of which, the second paragraph, is almost a repeat of what is in Palm Sunday Compromise. Both state that the Republicans initiated it, and "names names"; one has it a means of attacking an named Democrat Senator the other has the use of a named Democrat to ease its passage. I don't see why some, but not all, of the new material added during the review is needed when it duplicates existing material. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
In part due to the length of time it has taken to get this far, I'm awarding this article GA-status. The use of the brain scans image needs to be urgently addressed, and if the problems can't be addressed it will need to be removed from the article. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Good work everybody! Now let's get this thing to featured status! (Maybe after a little break) Ace-o-aces ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This was part of the case, but this section is longer than the ENTIRE section on activism in the main article. A decision was made that most information on activism and public opinion be placed in a separate article. Most of this section belongs there, not in the main article. Ace-o-aces ( talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I've added mention that Michael Schiavo was represented by Felos, which was surprisingly missing from the article. He wasn't mentioned a single time. I also mentioned the landmark Florida case Browning since he was notable for it and it had lot of direct bearing on the Schiavo case. Psalm84 ( talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding two recent edits, one involving legislators following Schiavo's death, the other on the Browning case:
On the first, I'm looking for more about what happened with the proposed legislation and info along those lines, if it can be found. Until then I won't oppose that passage being removed.
On the second, no, the Browning case is definitely not outside the scope of this article since the article's goal is to bring people understanding of this case. It's not extensively discussed but only a short summary is given. "Right to die" cases have changed how people are treated and Browning is a landmark case and was essential to the Schiavo ruling. Including it to help people better understand the case is exactly what WP is for. Right now, though, that's a type of problem I see in the article. The article doesn't clarify many things, leaves out a lot of pertinent information and just isn't very readable. The example of Felos completely missing from the article is just one example. Felos made many media appearances in the case so his role would be familiar to most people, and he did play a major one, yet that's been missing. People expecting to read a well-rounded account of the case would expect some information about him and explaining his role. That's not the only omission, and leaving out information like that makes the article, as it is right now, not worth reading. It doesn't connect the dots in the case. Psalm84 ( talk) 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if an info box for a person Is appropriate giving that the Article is about a legal case. Perhaps it would be more fitting to have an info box about a court cases and have Schiavo picture some where else. If no one objects in a week ill go ahead with the change. Thank you. -- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 20:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Neither of these references appear to support any material in the paragraph in which it is used [4]. I propose they be removed and am posting for discussion before removal. Ward20 ( talk) 04:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
References
Ought we update the area related to "Developments after the case" to add the controversy over Jeb Bush's use of her case in his campaign advertisements?
Essentially, her case is being used as a political ploy and it seems noteworthy but I don't know just how to word it in a way that is unbiased. RedDarling ( talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This article links to the anti-abortion movement not the pro-life movement? It's weird and irrelevant. L32007 ( talk) 15:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
No mention of Michael Schiavo's lover and children on the side, and thus his additional conflict of interest regarding the health and survival of his wife. That's balanced. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't happen to relate to the upcoming presidential election does it? -unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.212.175.30 ( talk) 20:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
just looked it up - what a psycho you have to be to call it "on the side" about someone forced to live "married" for 15 years by a psycho governor with a "president" on the side!!!! -Jonathan M. Stone
I sure am glad Wikipedia is attracting people who can manage to discuss things relevant to the idea of making complete and unbiased articles. What a difference eight years makes. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 09:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It can be mentioned in a neutral manner. I would think the section on the relationship between Michael and his in-laws would be the proper section for this Ace-o-aces2 ( talk) 00:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I've included some detail about Nurse Iyer's allegations. I understand the section on her claims was removed since they are dramatically at odds with known facts in the case, but since the Judge's statements specifically addressing her allegations are included, we should have something about what those statements were. Otherwise, we should just remove all specific mentions of Iyer. Ace-o-aces2 ( talk) 17:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The introductory section has been tagged with Confusing because it introduces several individuals with the surname 'Schiavo' and then refers to them by surname. It is unclear who is being referred to, and without personal understanding of the case, I cannot make clarification. A user who has a better understanding of what happened could help resolve this tag by changing the text to use full names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.11.38 ( talk) 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the infobox be {{ Infobox court case}} or {{ Infobox SCOTUS case}}? If there is more than one case then just pick the last one.-- 172.56.33.159 ( talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
-SCOTUS never took the case. Ace-o-aces2 ( talk) 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
How about US 11th Cir. SCHIAVO SCHINDLER v. SCHIAVO No. 05-11628. , Decided: March 25, 2005 ? That looks like the last case. "Plaintiffs (First Amended) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 34) is DENIED." The article has never mentioned this case. There is this from March 23, http://www.openjurist.org/403/f3d/1223/schiavo-schindler-v-schiavo-w . -- 172.56.0.100 ( talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-It's not mentioned directly, but the article says that all federal appeals where denied. I have not problem with putting specific information about the case in the body of the article, but I don't see why we need an info box. Ace-o-aces2 ( talk) 16:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we should have a section early on that cites each court case. Maybe not the TROs or appeals (which were all denied), but all of the cases where discovery occurred, with links to all of the decisions. You know: like an order of battle. Those decisions will review all of the relevant evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.116 ( talk) 14:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
EARLY LIFE It states she grew up in the Philadelphia area, though it says she went to Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School which is in Indianapolis Indiana. Is this an error?
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidal prophet 03:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Terri Schiavo case → Case of Terri Schiavo – Use the "Case of" prefix is more in line with the naming style of WP:DEATHS. We should also renamed Category:Terri Schiavo case likewise. Pages777 ( talk) 04:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)