Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 43

not about an encyclopedia anymore

This argument about "host" and "bread" is not about what makes wikipedia a better encyclopedia. If it was, it would be a simple question of what explains "host" to the reader? Answer: "wafer" or "bread" or whatever. Resolution: put (wafer) in paranthesis. End of story.

But this has ceased to become an argument about explaining a topic in an encyclopedic fashion, and has become an argument that something religious can only be explained in terms that the religion in question demands it to be explained. I'm not sure how that happened, but this is not a Catholic encyclopedia. wikipedia reports ALL points of view, and that would include a secular explanation of a Catholic ceremony. And "host" is completely meaningless in the context it is used, and a secular explanation is to the reader's benefit.

To keep it out, the opponents do not argue about encyclopedic policy or encyclopedic merit. They argue about their sensitivities being offended. They argue that no secular phrasing would not offend their Catholic terminology. And I say these folks are editing the wrong encyclopedia if they believe that the Catholic religion somehow supersedes what is encyclopedic, what has encyclopedic merit, and what is NPOV. Seriously. This sudden invocation about Catholic "offense" is simply a way to sideslip wikipedia policy. Deal with it. find a secular phrasing or go somewhere else.

Your particular religion does not get special treatment simply because you declare wikipedia policy to "offend" your views. If that were the case, then given the court found that Terri would want to have life support discontinued in her condition, I declare the entire Schindler point of view offensive to Terri's view, and that the article about Terri only report Terri's view and that which is not offensive to Terri's view. And I'll start deleting every single reference to the Schindler's criticism of Michael's actions.

This is ludicrous. Find a secular wording or find a catholic encyclopedia to work on. You cannot hijack NPOV policy simply by invoking some sort of religious intolerance to policy. FuelWagon 03:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Six points to make to the above:

1. "Your particular religion does not get special treatment. . . I have not asked for special treatment. Wikipedia does not put in explanations in brackets that actually contradicts any religion. Can you show me an article that has "Mahommed (the non-prophet)" or "Jesus (the son of Joseph)" On the contrary, you, FuelWagon, are trying to give a special (negative) treatment to Catholicism in your insistence that the article must put the word "bread" or "wafer" in brakets after "host" None of the Catholics here has attempted to put "host (the precious Body of the Lord Jesus Christ"; we are all happy with "host", and you seemed to be happy with that word by itself (even before it was wikified) during the six months in which it was there and in which you were heavily involved in editing this page and in which you told Ed that you had reread the whole article. Your objection started when you discovered that people who had opposed your edits on other matters wanted it. Nobody else objects to it.
2. . . . simply because you declare wikipedia policy to "offend" your views." I have not declared wikipedia policy to "offend" my views. Neither has Patsw or Str1977. I won't speak for them, but I can declare quite clearly that Wikipedia policy does not offend my views. There is no policy that requires that requires "Mahommed (the non-prophet)" or "Jesus (the son of Joseph)", or "host (unconsecrated [sic] alter [sic] bread)". I do declare FuelWagon policy to "offend" my views. However, FuelWagon policy is not Wikipedia policy.
3. And I'll start deleting every single reference to the Schindler's criticism of Michael's actions. Do you realize that you are being disruptive?
4. You haven't shown why the only technical word in the article that needs an explanation in brackets in addition to a wikilink is one where your explanation will contradict Catholic teaching, and why it's not necessary to have one for defibrillated, intubated, tracheotomy, anoxia, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, thalamic stimulator, or viaticum. Until you can provide such an explanation, I would argue that we should go back to "host", without any explanation (as it was for six months), but wikilinked, since you feel so strongly that there would be a problem if people didn't know what it meant.
5. I used that phrasing [unconsecrated alter bread] because it is used multiple times in the other articles I mentioned previously, such as holy communion, host, etc. . As I have pointed out, that phrasing does not appear even once in either of the articles you mentioned in any version in the recent history, and probably doesn't appear in the more remote history either. You have not explained whether that false statement was a deliberate attempt to deceive or an honest error resulting from your reading the articles and imagining that something was there "multiple" times.
6. You cannot hijack NPOV policy. I am not attempting to do so. NPOV policy does not require an explanation in brackets that contradicts the teaching of one of the major religions. If you feel that the article I wrote on host violates NPOV, feel free to edit it. AnnH ♫ 10:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I agree completely with all your points. Your doing a pretty goof job speaking for me.

As for "sensitivities": I myself feel uneasy (and have stated that above) about too great an emphasis on "being offended". Hence I agree with Marskell, that accuracy and clarity top supposed offensiveness. But I think if there is a non-offensive way tp phrase things accurate and clear, I'd opt for that way. (BTW, FW, you can be glad that you're among Catholics. We are quite used to putting up with being offended. Try things like this on other pages regarding other topics and you will really feel the heat.

As for the various words proposed: IMHO "wafer", "cookie", "cracker" are offensive in themselves (the first less than the latter two, but still). "Bread" however I deem only theologically incorrect and not offensive when included in a proper wording. Hence, my proposed compromise: Holy Communion in the form of bread (Pat changed "form" to appearance, but I think form is quite compatible with Catholic teaching, as in "sub utraque forma"). I think, this makes it quite plain for anyone who doesn't know what a "host" is. So it is exactly what FW asked for.

Str1977 10:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion, and this came to me this morning. Is the offense the word, H-O-S-T or the meaning behind it? Is it that host has various meanings in different contexts? Can the word Eucharist be useful in the place of host? A non-catholic (or at least one who does not follow Church literature) should understand among Catholics, "cracker" and "cookie" as used for host are offensive, as they are used to demean in some circles what we regard as Christ among us. The word "wafer" has been used to describe the Eucharist in the catholic context as a meaningless sacrament; maybe this would explain to a non-catholic why the feelings are strong. When one is taking a particle of the Host or Eucharist, we assume they are trying to unite themselves with Christ. It is an essential part of Catholic teaching, maybe even the core. Anything that would make it seem that Mrs. Schivo was trying to eat a mere wafer, engenders strong feelings from Catholics, myself included, just a strong as you feel that the article should be nuetral on what you regard as a matter of Faith. Did I help a bit there, FuelWagon? Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You probably just enflamed him more. To be clear, "cookie" and "cracker" were never suggested; Pat used them for emphasis. If you have a better way to provide a lay physical description that would be good. I think I'll go back Str's wording ("form" rather than "appearance"). Ann didn't mind it, I don't and I don't see why FW should. He's got his paranthetical reference.

Also while I broadly agree with Ann, I fail to see how "Mahommed (the non-prophet)" or "Jesus (the son of Joseph)" compare to the discussion we're having here. Those would be crude attempts to provoke not attempts to clarify religious usage. Not the FW doesn't have some provocation on his mind methinks, but those examples seem to be mixing apples and oranges. Marskell 13:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited "form" to "appearance" to remove ambiguity and increase accuracy. The Latin "forma" is not a cognate for the English "form". Since there was no objection to the this edit to "appearance" on this talk page, there is no justification for reverting to "form".

Str1977 wrote "I think form is quite compatible with Catholic teaching." This is an invitation to discuss and not an objection. On the other hand, I am certain that "form" is not compatible with Catholic teaching. An objection that would justify an edit would be a complete exchange between Str1977 and myself resulting in one of us agreeing on compromise. Marksell was not delegated by me to implement compromise wording and not a participant in a form v. appearance discussion which, in fact, has yet to take place. patsw 14:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Form doesn't have to be compatible with Catholic teaching. It has to be compatible with an attempt at cogent description. "Marksell was not delegated by me to implement compromise wording." I wasn't aware that I had to be. Honestly, what the hell does that mean? No one delegated you to change it to begin with. It initially stood as form when Str edited. Marskell 14:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This is basic Wikipedia editing protocol: If one editor believes the reason given for an edit is incorrect, then a new edit can be made and explained in the summary. This is what I did. I have followed the Wikipedia protcol.

Marskell, you didn't raise an objection to "appearance" as being less ambiguous or less accurate than "form". So what other justification is there to edit it back to "form"? patsw 15:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I must be missing something: edit without Talk for an initial change but for subsequent revision you need to be "delegated" from Talk? Nope. I was "per Str1977" if that wasn't obvious.

"Appearance" increases ambiguity as it begs the question of whether you're piling a second non-corporeal description on top of an initial one. The point of the caveat is that it be non-theological and in this context it's hard to find anything simpler than "form." As it stands, it's been removed and I'm becoming less and less interested in wasting time over it. We'll just see if FW wants to change it again. Marskell 15:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it your position that two descriptions must appear, one "non-corporeal" and a second "coporeal" description to contradict the first?

My choice of "appearance" is that it would not raise an objecton to a Catholic and from a non-believer's point of view would not raise an objection because it retains the appearance of bread.

"Form" is problematical for the reasons that Ann has been citing all along: In its ambiguity it denies the religious beliefs of the subject of the article, some of the editors, and Catholic readers. patsw 15:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Insofar as it is used generically, without theological implication I see no contradiction. As I've said more than once, what is frustrating is that any attempt at physical description appears to offend. If someone asks me its shape I'll say "wafer." That's its shape. If someone asks me what its made of I'll say bread. That doesn't stand in contradiction to anyone's religious POV. It's a disparate, not a contradictory, frame of reference, in the same way "television" is both a medium and a box of wires sitting in front of me in a cabinet. Marskell 16:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am also troubled by the idea that no physical description is allowable. The reason "host" is unique from those other terms like "anoxia" is that host has a clear meaning to most English-speaking readers, and it is useful to clarify that this is not the meaning we intend here. There must be a way to express this meaning to the secular community in a NPOV manner, and it is extremely disruptive that a religious group is trying to hijack this by removing any references to the physical manifestation of "host." In other situations, WP has always tended to err on the side of providing scientific descriptions of fact even when they contradict religious teachings (see significant sections of Shroud of Turin, Book of Mormon, and other similar articles). We need to do the same here and provide a simple context clue for readers. This is not the Encyclopedia Catholica. ESkog | ^Talk 17:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I ask. It is Marskell's position and ESkog's position that the Terri Schiavo article must contain an explanation of Holy Communion that contradicts Catholic belief? (i.e. the Encyclopedia Atheista)

For ESKog: The original text of the article remained unedited for at least six months before a four word anonymous edit on 25 October

For Marskell: The proper analogy would be to assert that "television" is both a medium and not a medium. That is a contradiction.

If there's any "disruption" to complain about, it did not commence with the Catholic editors. patsw 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If I thought adding a quick paranthetical to a medical term would help readers understand, I would add it. A quick look at how "anoxia" is used indicates that the sentence could at least be rewritten to improve readibility and so that a reader understands what's being discussed. "Host" means nothing outside the Christian faith. Either the sentence needs to be rewritten to explain that "host" means a communion wafer or a parenthetical needs to be added to explain. And the absolutely positively only reason to NOT insert it is because it "offends". And to that, it's not about beign encyclopedic anymore if there is absolutely no secular term to explain this that isn't offensive to the Catholic sensibilities. FuelWagon 01:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Outstanding, thank you. You want host explained, lets work on that solution then. I proposed Eucharist as a comprimise. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 01:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat, I took the points you made into consideration and have learnt something from them. However, I still think "form" is a wording we should be able to agree on.

FW, you are mistaken that "host" means nothing to non-Catholics. It is a specific term, like a technical term, but it is the accurate term. There is no such thing as a secular wording. If you insist to have a short explanation, it should be worded so as to be accurate and non-offensive (if possible - but I think it's possible). It should be spelled properly (hint! your version could be reverted solely because of orthography).

Str1977 11:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I like how it looks at the moment, following work by Dominick and Ann. Proto t c 12:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I concurr with Proto. Thanks to Ann and Dominick. Str1977 12:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, FW are these changes more acceptable to you? If you have more discussion, lets hash it out further. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

hash

The section currently says something to this effect:

In accordance with the Catholic ritual of Viaticum, she received Holy Communion for the last time; it had been administered to her once through her feeding tube just before it was removed. The Eucharist can be offered under either form (or species), and, as her tongue was too dry to receive a small piece of the Communion host, a tiny drop of consecrated wine was applied to her tongue instead.

Can someone explain grammatically what "The Eucharist can be offered under either form (or species)" means? either implies two choices. grammatically, the above construction is confusing as to what those two choices are. FuelWagon 23:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, either implies two choices; both are clearly stated in that section:

• Choice number 1 "a small piece of the Communion host"
• Choice number 2 "a tiny drop of consecrated wine"

There's no grammatical confusion there (speaking as a linguist). AnnH ♫ 00:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in Catholicism, you can take Communion with one or the other species, it used to be that only the host was offered. In traditional Mass this is the only way offered. In other rites, consecreted wine or the Host is offered, and sometimes both. Gramatically it is correct as a technical definition, it explains she was given Communion in a valid manner, and how both manners may be employed. IMHO, the term (or species) may be removed, what part of it gives you pause?. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand FWs point, by a separate channel. I will try another fix. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That clarifies it, Dominick. FuelWagon 05:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Oral Feeding and the Second Guardianship Challenge" section

I find the second paragraph of that section a bit strange, with all the "bullet 17" etc. bits. Also, I think there's too much quotation within quotation, so I want to look up the documents and see what was taken verbatim, and what is or can be paraphrased. AnnH ♫ 08:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in the spirit of summary style we should paraphrase concisely where we can and not over-use quotes. Marskell 09:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It was originally the wording from the Guardian ad litem with the idea that his wording would be the most neutral. An edit war broke out over various specific accusations made by the Schindlers, and they got included with references to the bullet numbers in their motion against Michael. So, it is a mix of neutral Guardian ad litem information along with specific POV accusations by the Schindlers. FuelWagon 14:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of quotes here was a mess. I've tried to clarify and shorten. However, the reference to specific bullets still remains. It seems a little odd but I don't want to drop a reference unnecessarily. I did drop the S's felt Michael was "not acting in her best interests." This is obvious. Marskell 11:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Eating Disorder

Does anyone have more detailed information on the cause of her heart attack(supposedly an eating disorder)? Superm401 | Talk 19:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. What you read in the current version of the article is about the limit of known reliable information. Doctors noted a potassium imbalance after Terri collapsed. They think it may have been due to an eating disorder. Michael filed a lawsuit against the doctor for not detecting the eating disorder and won the lawsuit, which was appealed, and then settled out of court. During that trial, a friend testified she believed Terri had an eating disorder and Michael testified that he saw some peculiar eating habits from Terri. a while later (a few years?) a bone scan came out that the Schindlers tried to use to prove that Michael had abused Terri and that she may have collapsed because he choked her, beat her, or similar. But this must also be viewed in contrast to the fact that for about 4 years, the Schindlers got along just fine with Michael while he was Terri's guardian. The big blowout came when they had a fight over how to spend the lawsuit money. This is when the Schindler's first challenge Michael's guardianship, but they were never successful in removing him as guardian, despite repeated efforts. It was several years after her collapse taht the bone scan came to the Schindler's attention, and they used that information in one of their attempts to remove Michael as guardian. Doctors then revealed that the damage seen on the bonescan was consistent with someone who had collapsed while standing and had been given CPR by paramedics. For several years, there isn't much else about the cause fo Terri's collapse. The autopsy results said that there was no scarring of her esophogaus that would be consistent with an eating disorder, nor did the autopsy find any evidence of abuse or physical assault. The autopsy also noted that the potasium levels may have been altered by Terri's treatment immediately after her collapse, in which she would ahve been given an IV for fluids, and that may explain the potassium levels. I think the autopsy said her heart looked normal. It also mentions that the sort of blood tests they did on Terri when she first collapsed were much more limited than the sort of tests they would do now. In short, the autopsy says we don't know why she had the cardiac arrest. Other than that, there's not much else other than a whole bunch of speculation that doesn't have objective support. FuelWagon 19:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I guessed there was no better information. Superm401 | Talk 20:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

We argue here a lot here, but it is f***ing weird. There just ain't a final answer. Marskell 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit

I've been moving slowly across the article with a minefield-procedure; editing one thing at a time and explaining it carefully. I've got to the section titled "Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit" and that's my first major stumbling block. I don't understand it. "Schiavo came home to her family in September", it says, but what is "her family" at this point? Her husband? Her parents? Both? Is this the period, mentioned later in the section, when Michael Schiavo is living with the Schindlers?

And why is the chronological order broken up in the first two paragraphs? The PVS diagnosis is apparently made while she is still in hospital and some months after that she is taken home. Is there a good reason for describing these events out of order?

Can someone more clueful than I am enlighten me? :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

When she first came home, I believe it was a joint effort between her husband and her parents to try to take care of her, but they were immediately overwhelmed by the level of her needs. The big breakup between her husband and her parents didn't happen until years after her initial collapse when the malpractice suit was finally settled and there was a big argument over money. Before that point, Michael (the husband) actually stayed at the parents place for free for several months, so they were getting along just fine. After the malpractice-money argument, they didn't speak to each other, that's also when the Schindlers first challenge Michael's guardianship, the PVS diagnosis, etc. FuelWagon 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It bounces around chronologically a little bit because one paragraph is talking about Terri's location and another is talking about her condition. I spent a lot of time carving up the article to put it in chronological order, but I didn't see this as too problematic to rearrange it. FuelWagon 21:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Communion host

Could you explain the following to me like I was a 5 year old? Understanding what "the other side" cares about is the key to compromise.

1. Why is "consecrated altar bread" offensive and "consecrated wine" not? Don't they both contain the whole Christ?

   Yes, they do. The trouble is that there is no term (to my knowledge) for "consecated wine" parallel to host. I was indeed worried for some time about "consecrated wine" but I guess there's no working NPOV alternative. Str1977 10:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

   Well, then this is heresy anyhow! I'm changing it. The Catechism itself says: "Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity" If this wording is Catholic enough for vatican.va then it's Catholic enough for wikipedia.org. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

2. You start with grape juice and then it undergoes fermentation. You get wine - but you can still call it "fermented grape juice" if you want. You start with altar bread and then it undergoes consecration. You get a Communion host. Fine. But why is it forbidden to refer to it as "consecrated altar bread" to explain how it came into being?

   According to "Transubstantiation" it is the substance that changes from bread into the body of Christ. When fermenting grape juice (or baking bread from grain/flour), the substance stays the same. It's natural process. Str1977 10:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Why is the phrase "a small piece of the host" not offensive? How can you have a small piece of the host? The host is the whole Christ, isn't it? Is Christ divided? Can you have a small piece of Christ?

   The host is the whole Christ, but also any particle of the host is the one Christ, in catholic thinking. Str1977 10:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

4. When I get the Lutheran version of this the pastor says "Body of Christ - Bread of Life" as she hands me the wafer. What does a Roman Catholic priest say?

Hoping to understand. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

1. A catholic priest (if doing his job properly) says: "The body of Christ" and "The blood of Christ". Str1977 10:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

   The really trendy ones say, "The Body of Christ, Ann"! (Ouch!) AnnH ♫ 12:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

   I included the caveat because unfortunately I have encountered "The bread of life" and "the chalice of life". Of course, these are true as well, but to me it looks like pandering to a lack of faith (whether in the priest or the distributor or (perceived) in the communicant). I've been against this tampering with the words since I read Eusebius' account of the Novatian schism in the 3rd century. Str1977 23:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

   Wow, you read it already in the 3rd century. I waited until the paperback edition came out in the 7th century. :) In any case the words I'm familiar with from the Lutheran sacrament are "the body of Christ - the bread of life" and "the blood of Christ - the chalice of life" (or rather, those words in Icelandic). According to Wikipedia Lutherans do, more or less, have the doctrine of transubstantiation. I didn't know that and I think I'm probably as well informed as most laypeople. I've never heard a Lutheran pastor insist that this has to be taken literally, maybe this is the "pious silence" thing. To me that seems to mean: "we have some weird doctrines - better not tell anyone". It's interesting to hear Catholic perspectives first hand. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The argument was that, essentially, any physical description of the host might offend. Can't call it bread, can't call it a wafer. Thus we have "appearance of" which I don't like but has been stable. The talk on this subject is like 50k if you want to browse it. Marskell 09:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In what sense has it been stable? :) There wasn't any explanation yesterday when I inserted one and hadn't been for two weeks. I've browsed the talk but I still don't understand know the answers to the above questions. In any case I won't strongly object to this "appearence" wording. It ought to make it clear to non-Catholics with some familiarity with Christian rites that this is the wafer. Somewhat annoyingly "appearance" (more than "form") suggests that it is not in fact actually bread but since the sentence contains "according to the teaching of the Catholic Church" I guess it's technically accurate. So, if this is in fact something everyone can live with (even if no-one actually likes it), I'm happy with dropping further discussion. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Stable in that it hadn't been touched or reverted over for two weeks. "Somewhat annoyingly 'appearance' (more than 'form') suggests that it is not in fact actually bread"--that is the crux of the argument. Patsw, who edited appearance in, wants to imply that it is "not in fact actually bread." Form seems more straightforward and understandable in lay terms, but it's minor ultimately and I've been inclined to leave it. Marskell 10:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history I don't see any two-week period where this wording was not touched. And for the last two weeks there hasn't been any bread at all - not even the appearance of it - in the article :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I was confusing HP. When bread was removed period "appearance of" was indeed also removed. It was the last agreed upon qualifier to the qualifier and Str appears to have re-used it for that reason. Marskell 11:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"in the form of ..." was fine with me, but Pat objected and I can accept it. "wafer" I still think offensive. Str1977 10:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Since this settled down, there was a single link repair. It has been stable. I'm presuming "appearance of" was redacted from an older edit and as I say I'm inclined to leave it. Marskell 10:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Ann's edit: Yup! Str1977 11:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Ann's edit: Splendid. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Encore une fois: Yup! Str1977 11:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also explain what "species" means in this context? HA HA HA! Marskell 11:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

All along, I've tried to find something that didn't contradict Catholic teaching but that didn't try to confirm it either. Wikipedia, in my view, should not say that this was "bread", or that it was "the Body of Christ". Some people think that "bread" is fairly neutral, because they don't realize that the Church teaches that after the consecration it isn't bread any more. There are religions that believe that it's bread symbolizing Christ, or that Christ is present in the bread and wine. Both of those beliefs contradict Catholic teaching. There have been accusations made above that Catholics are trying to hijack this page! I'd like to make it absolutely clear that no Catholic here is trying to make the article say that the host is the Body of Christ. We are just trying to resist attempts to make it say that it's bread. To find a brief wording that doesn't contradict or affirm Catholic teaching, and that could be added immediately after "host" is proving to be extremely complicated. That is why I created the host article (which I'd love to add to if I had time) and wiki-linked the word in this article.

I don't think we need to have "consecrated species of bread or consecrated species of wine." The "consecrated species" words at the beginning of the sentence can carry through to the word "wine". I have edited accordingly.

Haukur, you're the first person to mention the contradiction that we could accept "consecrated wine". You're quite right: it is a contradiction. Str has just said he has been uncomfortable about the wording "consecrated wine" for some time, but that there's no alternative NPOV wording. I agree fully with him, and that had been on my mind also. You see, we do have an NPOV word ("host") that can replace the controversial "body of Christ" and the controversial "bread". "Host" doesn't imply either that transubstaniation does take place or that it doesn't. You could say, "Excuse me, Father, I've just found a host on the floor, but I don't know if it's been consecrated or not." (Not, "I've found something on the floor that's either a host or bread.) The correct way for Catholics to refer to the contents of the chalice after the consecration is "the Precious Blood". (Relax. I know that's POV, and I promise not to attempt to put it in!) Actually, many Catholics avoid saying that, perhaps because it's too startling, but can't accept "wine" either, as it's heretical (according to our teachings). So, what we normally say, in English-speaking countries, is "from the Chalice." (I had to avoid wheat, myself, from April to early this month, because of a temporary intolerance, so I'd ask the priest before Mass if I could receive "from the Chalice".) We couldn't put that into the article, because I don't know what container the priest brought to the hospice.

Marskell, your edit summary (more than your words above) suggests that you're not happy with "species". I like "species" because it's the term used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and remember that the article currently qualifies it by saying, "according to the teaching of the Catholic Church") and also because patsw wasn't happy with "form". I agree that the wording "appearance of bread" carries an implicit suggestion that it isn't really bread. I Nobody objected, and it seemed much less problematic than saying that it was bread, so I didn't want to stir up a hornet's nest again! I'm sure patsw can accept species. Str has indicated that he's happy. If you're really not happy with it, then, for the record, I can accept "form". I accept what patsw says about ambiguity, but it's certainly not heretical, as form can have different meanings. Haukur has certainly walked (innocently) into something very explosive, but it may not have been really settled before; it may have been just dormant. So, I'm happy to continue the discussion. AnnH ♫ 12:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you notice the wink in my edit summary?! Species is fine. Marskell 12:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so. But anyway, it's just as well you brought back me down to earth. I was beginning to feel quite smug with one splendid and two yups! AnnH ♫ 12:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm far from innocent, of course :) I saw Ann mentioned this conflict on her RfA and thought I'd take a peak, aware of the explosive nature of the page.

I like our current Eucharist wording much better than previous ones because it's both more consistent with the Catechism (as far as this non-Catholic can see) and easier to understand for non-Catholics. Ideally we would wikilink the word "species" to an article explaining its theological significance in this context - but I can't find any such article, not even in the Catholic encyclopedia. This is not a major problem, though. Those in the know about transubstantiation will get the gist and others will still be able to parse the sentence and follow some of the other Eucharist links if they want more information. Now, if someone could answer my chronology question... :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

re: "consecrated species of bread". Glad to see there's a way to say "bread" without burning for it. works for me. FuelWagon 17:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You too! This is the best solution ever. :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't like it! Kidding ... just kidding ;-) it reads well and doesn't seem awkward or contrived. I still think we could do without the parens at all but I seem to be in the minority on that. Too bad we can't "lock" the sentence. And thanks Haukurth for starting this new and already lengthy section. --hydnjo talk 17:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A Matter of Law

What bothers me most about this case is how fast and loose the judge (who after all is a mere lawyer in black robes) was with the law as written. This was a euthanasia case. Not a right to die case. There was no living will and darn little to realisticly indicate how lady would have wanted the situation handled. This lady was mercy-killed by the state and no satisfactory review of the case was ever given upon the central medical facts. Death row imates get better legal representation than this lady got.

The central question remains does the state have the right to starve someone to death just because they have become a financial burden? Where shall this slippery slope lead us to?

Perhaps euthanasia laws are needed -- we are long overdue for this honest debate -- but there are none on the books right now so this judge should be punished for overstepping his authority. He is not a Super-Legislator and certainly not a King – or is he? Or should I say “He”?

I would like to see a section dealing with the law here. I feel the judge far exceeded his authority. Tough cases make for bad law but that does not give carte blanche to our men in black to play God.

Also I would like to see some scientific challenge to the results of the autopsy. I saw that lady follow a balloon around the room with her eyes. If she was blind, how did she do that?

I am very suspicious of the results. It just does not add up.

Actually, it was a living will. The problem was, the living will was given orally, which is legal in Florida. The parents were understandably skeptical, given the lack of written record, and sued. They never provided any satisfactory evidence against the oral will described by the husband, and so lost. Superm401 | Talk 07:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You should read this (page 8 of 54), the paragraph starting with "This case comes to the Court with an extensive history." The number of trials and motions and retrials and legal maneuvars allowed the Schindlers is unprecedented, including four trips to the Supreme Court, State Legislation (Terri's Law), and federal legislation (palm sunday compromise), and even an attempt by some members of congress to call Terri as a witness to invoke "witness protection" on her. On page 9 of the same PDF, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals explains that "Not only has Schiavo's case been given due process, but few, if any, similar cases have ever been afforded this heightened level of process". So, your claims of a "fast and loose" judge do not in any way, shape, or form, match the facts of the case, if for no other reason that Judge Greer was not the only judge to make any decisions about the case. The supreme court makes its own decision to accept or deny a case, without input from Greer. A number of Greer's decisions were directly appealed, with the appeals court in at least one case saying that not only would they deny the appeal, but they would have made the same finding of facts that Greer did.

As for this being a "mercy killing", there was a trial held in 2000 to determine if Terri wanted to be kept on life support or not. Terri did not have a living will. Michael was her legal guardian. He had the authority to withdraw life support. The Schindler's took it to court. The court had a number of witnesses testify about Terri's comments before her collapse. The court found that Terri had made reliable statements that she would not want to be kept on life support in her situation. So, it became a matter of Terri's wishes, not a "mercy killing" as you put it. FuelWagon 18:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

oral living will !!

An oral living will? thats a new one! Now that is very fast and loose with law. This lis legal in Florida? I wonder if that was written by law-makers or a judge.

True, there have been many court challanges but never were the medical facts reviewed. Was Terry alive in part or not? That was never answered until they sawed her brain apart. And by then she was certainly 100% percent dead.

For all the talk about the Patriot Act and how it supposedly curtails our rights and freedoms, no liberal seems particularly disturbed that the government can order the execution of an invalid "for their own good" ( as well as free up any funds they might have in their bank accounts).

-- mccommas

Lawmakers. Get your facts straight. Superm401 | Talk 15:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

never were the medical facts reviewed

mccommas, whatever propaganda site you are currently getting your information from, I don't care. But you're becoming an uninformed bother on this page. For your information, there was a rather famous trial in 2002 to determine whether or not Terri was PVS, whether she had any chance of recovery, and to review all the medical facts. The basic info is here. A new CAT scan was performed. EEG's were taken. This is also when the Schindlers made SIX HOURS of video tape, then heavily edited down to 4.5 minutes of clips. You could video tape two people playing with a Ouija board for 6 hours and find 4.5 minutes of clips that would "prove" that Ouija boards really do have psychic powers. The result was that three neurologists said Terri was PVS with no hope of recovery. And one neurologist/quack said she was MCS and could recover with his hyperbaric therapy (which doesn't exist in any medical textbooks). And one radiologist (who happened to be friends of teh Schindlers) said Terri was MCS. The court ruled that Terri was PVS with no hope of recovery. Also, take into consideration that prior to this trial, three other neurologists had diagnosed Terri to be PVS with no chance of recovery. And finally, Terri was first diagnosed as PVS with no chance of recover within a year or so after her collapse in 1990. The Schindlers did not even dispute this diagnosis until twelve years later in 2002, when the diagnosis trial was held, and that was only because all their other legal options had run out. So, in the end, you've got 7 neurologists who say she was PVS with no hope of recovery. and 1 radiologist/friend-of-family and 1 neurologist/quack who said she was MCS. So, I think one can safely say that the medical facts were "reviewed". FuelWagon 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

something to make you go Hummmm....

"I have to add this. I am studying for my history quiz tomorrow and I quote this from my text book

" The Nazis systematically killed by gassing, lethal injections, or starvation those peoples judged useless to society, especially the mentally and physically handicapped. Nazi eugenics measures served as a precursor to the wholesale extermination of peoples classified as racially inferiors such as gypsies and Jews."

"But this is different" I hear you saying but is it?

-- Mccommas

I must have missed the part where you showed how Teri was declared racially or genetically inferior, and how Florida (or the US, for that matter) systematically rounded up everyone similar to her to kill them en masse. Ronabop 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Haven't we heard all these know-it-alls call her a vegetable and wasn't she starved to death? This is one case that got very much publicity, but similar things happen all the time. Str1977 08:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Judge Greer

There's no link to Judge George Greer in the article. Is there a reason for that? Andjam 15:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No, feel free to correct this. Superm401 | Talk 16:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Husband sometimes unwieldly

I'm not trying to say Michael was not Terri's husband, but I think that some of the uses of the word is unwieldly. Examples include:

and her husband was a restaurant manager ... the St. Petersburg apartment she shared with her husband [married couples usually share apartments, so wouldn't "their St. Petersburg apartment" be better?] ... her husband's 9-1-1 call ... Her husband also said that he had noticed some peculiar eating habits

There are some other cases of use of the word "husband", but I'm ok with those cases. I can't spot anyone else called Michael in the article. Would changing these instances from husband to Michael be ok? Andjam 03:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

A reminder on editing the article

The normal rules of the Wikipedia still apply: deleting, rewording, rewriting substantial parts of this (or any) article require a reason.

To avoid an editing conflict in the article, it will be useful to discuss the reason here on the talk page before making the change and to obtain an editing consensus for the change.

It's a Wikipedia biographical article and the form of biographical articles which cover the subject to the detail we have here include siblings and the significant events of their relationships. It is part of the story of the life of the subject and not merely a single incident and its aftermath in her life or impact on medical ethics, law, and culture. patsw 19:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that—you're absolutely right, I shouldn't have just gone ahead and edited by myself. Having now looked at the talk page and its archives, though, I must say that I've decided against getting involved! I'll just say this, though: if you want to get this article featured (and you very well may not; I've no way of knowing), you really will have to pretty severely pare down the article. As it is, it's too long, with too much extraneous information to find acceptance among the demanding bunch at Featured article candidates. And I say this as somebody who doesn't mind long articles. Anyway, those are my two cents. Best of luck editing this article. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 04:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think that at a minimum, the details about her siblings, where she met Michael Schiavo, where they got married, etc. can and should be taken out. Twinmom 03:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia biographical article and the form of biographical articles which cover the subject to the detail we have here include siblings and the significant events of their relationships. It is part of the story of the life of the subject and not merely a single incident and its aftermath in her life or impact on medical ethics, law, and culture. patsw 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed some inconsitency in the way in which parenthetical statements are added near citations/footnotes. When there is a sentence or phrase that is followed by a footnote link which directs the reader to the footnotes at the bottom of the page, there is, on occasion, a parenthetical note telling the reader on what page or section of the cited document the information appears. In some instances, these parenthetical statements appear PRIOR to the footnote link and, in other instances, they appear AFTER the footnote link. I am relatively certain people are not too fussy about where these should appear. I am of the mind that a parenthetical statement related to a footnote should appear after the footnote link. I would like to change them so they are all the same, but I want to ensure you all are OK with that. Please let me know if I'm not explaining this fully enough, and I'll try to elaborate or I will give you a specific example from the article.--Minaflorida 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that anything that improves readability and makes the article more encyclopedic is a good thing. Go for it!--ghost 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)