Free Essays on The Silent Witness

The case of Theresa Shiavo gained national attention because it was an extremely controversial subject. Following a collapse in February 1990 of heart failure, when she was only 26 years old, Terri had been in a coma for three months. When she regained consciousness she was in the generally unresponsive state in which she would remain for 15 years. She remained on a feeding tube to keep her alive. Her husband, Michael Shiavo, stated that it was not Terri’s wish to be kept alive in this way and that she should be taken off the feeding tube and allowed to die. Her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, did not agree and petitioned the court to allow their daughter to continue on the life-support. This sparked major press coverage and the attention of Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, Congress and the White House. Over the years, more than 40 judges have been involved with this case. On the morning of February 25, 1990, Theresa Shiavo collapsed in the hallway of her home in St. Petersburg, Florida of what appeared to be heart failure. It is not known what caused the heart failure; however, it was well known that Terri had been concerned about her weight, and had been on a NutraSystems diet in the past. Doctors who examined her after she collapsed presumed that she had the eating disorder bulimia, and because of this she had a potassium deficiency which caused her heart failure. This has never been proven. The cause of her collapse remains a mystery. When paramedics arrived at the scene, Terri was in full cardiac arrest. After seven attempts to defibrillate, or electrically shock the heart into beating normally, a rhythm was restored. Terri’s brain had gone without oxygen for over an hour. She did receive irreversible brain damage. The biggest question that still remains is, â€Å"Was Terri in a ‘permanent vegetative state?’† Some doctors have referred to Terri’s condition as â€Å"locked-in syndrome, which was not the case. Complete â€Å"l... Free Essays on The Silent Witness Free Essays on The Silent Witness The case of Theresa Shiavo gained national attention because it was an extremely controversial subject. Following a collapse in February 1990 of heart failure, when she was only 26 years old, Terri had been in a coma for three months. When she regained consciousness she was in the generally unresponsive state in which she would remain for 15 years. She remained on a feeding tube to keep her alive. Her husband, Michael Shiavo, stated that it was not Terri’s wish to be kept alive in this way and that she should be taken off the feeding tube and allowed to die. Her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, did not agree and petitioned the court to allow their daughter to continue on the life-support. This sparked major press coverage and the attention of Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, Congress and the White House. Over the years, more than 40 judges have been involved with this case. On the morning of February 25, 1990, Theresa Shiavo collapsed in the hallway of her home in St. Petersburg, Florida of what appeared to be heart failure. It is not known what caused the heart failure; however, it was well known that Terri had been concerned about her weight, and had been on a NutraSystems diet in the past. Doctors who examined her after she collapsed presumed that she had the eating disorder bulimia, and because of this she had a potassium deficiency which caused her heart failure. This has never been proven. The cause of her collapse remains a mystery. When paramedics arrived at the scene, Terri was in full cardiac arrest. After seven attempts to defibrillate, or electrically shock the heart into beating normally, a rhythm was restored. Terri’s brain had gone without oxygen for over an hour. She did receive irreversible brain damage. The biggest question that still remains is, â€Å"Was Terri in a ‘permanent vegetative state?’† Some doctors have referred to Terri’s condition as â€Å"locked-in syndrome, which was not the case. Complete â€Å"l...

7 You Know What I Meant Mistakes

7 You Know What I Meant Mistakes 7 â€Å"You Know What I Meant† Mistakes 7 â€Å"You Know What I Meant† Mistakes By Mark Nichol One can often stumble through a sentence that isn’t quite right and then backtrack to make sense of it and then, reasonably confident of its meaning, slog out again and continue on one’s way. Or one can waltz right through a sentence and keep right on dancing. Which technique do you prefer your readers to follow? (Hint: What would you, as a reader, rather do?) Don’t let â€Å"You know what I meant† be your byword for stringing trains of words together avoid these almost-right constructions. (Links to related posts follow each example.) 1. â€Å"The agency acquired the parcel in 1931, but at that time in the heart of the Great Depression public acquisition of the adjacent property was not feasible even though it grove was offered at a bargain price.† A sentence is allowed one em dash, which sets off one part of the sentence from another with a sudden break to indicate an abrupt change in direction or a surprising statement, or a pair of em dashes to serve as a more emphatic replacement for two commas or a brace of parentheses. If you find yourself with three em dashes, convert a singleton to a comma or use parenthetical alternatives for the pair; two’s company, but three’s a crowd: â€Å"The agency acquired the parcel in 1931, but at that time in the heart of the Great Depression public acquisition of the adjacent property was not feasible, even though the grove was offered at a bargain price.† (em dashes). 2. â€Å"Those who opt for military service would only serve as military police, truck drivers or in homeland-security posts.† In a list of items, use one preposition to serve the entire list, or pair each item up with its own preposition; opting for something in between violates the requirement of parallel structure. My revision makes â€Å"military police or truck drivers† a single compound list item. Note, too, the inversion of only and serve (and the resulting change of meaning): â€Å"Those who opt for military service would serve only as military police or truck drivers or in homeland-security posts.† (parallel list structure in a sentence) 3. â€Å"The film is less concerned with naval warfare than close-ups of the star’s face.† The lack of a parallel marker in the sentence makes the reader stumble, as if one has reached the top of a stairway before one expects to. (The statement appears to mean that the film is less concerned with naval warfare than close-ups of the star’s face are concerned about naval warfare, and the sentence should end with are no, wait, that’s not what it means.) The insertion of a second with to more clearly identify the juxtaposed parallel phrases â€Å"naval warfare† and â€Å"close-ups of the star’s face† guides the reader’s steps: â€Å"The film is less concerned with naval warfare than with close-ups of the star’s face.† (parallel phrase structure within a sentence) 4. â€Å"As an entrepreneur, name recognition is important and the new name is more recognizable.† The implication of this sentence is that name recognition is an entrepreneur. However, the intent is to communicate that the writer is an entrepreneur and that for that reason, it is important that the name of the person’s business stand out. To express this idea effectively, the introductory clause requires a personal pronoun; I have also inserted a comma before the beginning of the final clause to set it off more distinctly: â€Å"Because I am an entrepreneur, name recognition is important, and the new name is more recognizable.† (dangling modifier) 5. â€Å"The agency cites strong evidence linking a cold virus to the mysterious SARS that has killed seventeen people worldwide.† This sentence implies that more than one mysterious SARS exists, and the one in question is responsible for seventeen deaths. However, the writer is referring to the one and only SARS, which is mysterious and which has killed seventeen people. That reading is effected by the simple insertion of a comma and the change of the restrictive that to the nonrestrictive which: â€Å"The agency cites strong evidence linking a cold virus to the mysterious SARS, which has killed seventeen people worldwide.† (restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses) 6. â€Å"It would be something analogous to a YMCA (which stands for ‘Young Men’s Christian Association’).† This sentence indicates that a YMCA a building stands in for a spelled-out name. It is the initials, however, that substitute for the full name: â€Å"It would be something analogous to a YMCA (the initials of which stand for ‘Young Men’s Christian Association’).† (mistaking a name for an entity) 7. â€Å"Smith himself could not do the job because he had angered many supporters through his support of the reservoir project.† As (not) punctuated, this sentence implies that Smith could do the job, but not for the reason stated; another (unstated) reason explains his suitability. But what the writer means is that Smith could not do the job, and the dependent clause (the one beginning with because) explains why. A comma inserted before the clause clarifies that this latter interpretation is correct: â€Å"Smith himself could not do the job, because he had angered many supporters through his support of the reservoir project.† Better yet, invert the clauses, but trade the pronoun in the dependent clause for the person’s name: â€Å"Because Smith had angered many supporters through his support of the reservoir project, he himself could not do the job.† (punctuating before a dependent clause) Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Style category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:20 Great Opening Lines to Inspire the Start of Your Story5 Brainstorming Strategies for Writers90 Verbs Starting with â€Å"Ex-†

7 You Know What I Meant Mistakes

7 You Know What I Meant Mistakes 7 â€Å"You Know What I Meant† Mistakes 7 â€Å"You Know What I Meant† Mistakes By Mark Nichol One can often stumble through a sentence that isn’t quite right and then backtrack to make sense of it and then, reasonably confident of its meaning, slog out again and continue on one’s way. Or one can waltz right through a sentence and keep right on dancing. Which technique do you prefer your readers to follow? (Hint: What would you, as a reader, rather do?) Don’t let â€Å"You know what I meant† be your byword for stringing trains of words together avoid these almost-right constructions. (Links to related posts follow each example.) 1. â€Å"The agency acquired the parcel in 1931, but at that time in the heart of the Great Depression public acquisition of the adjacent property was not feasible even though it grove was offered at a bargain price.† A sentence is allowed one em dash, which sets off one part of the sentence from another with a sudden break to indicate an abrupt change in direction or a surprising statement, or a pair of em dashes to serve as a more emphatic replacement for two commas or a brace of parentheses. If you find yourself with three em dashes, convert a singleton to a comma or use parenthetical alternatives for the pair; two’s company, but three’s a crowd: â€Å"The agency acquired the parcel in 1931, but at that time in the heart of the Great Depression public acquisition of the adjacent property was not feasible, even though the grove was offered at a bargain price.† (em dashes). 2. â€Å"Those who opt for military service would only serve as military police, truck drivers or in homeland-security posts.† In a list of items, use one preposition to serve the entire list, or pair each item up with its own preposition; opting for something in between violates the requirement of parallel structure. My revision makes â€Å"military police or truck drivers† a single compound list item. Note, too, the inversion of only and serve (and the resulting change of meaning): â€Å"Those who opt for military service would serve only as military police or truck drivers or in homeland-security posts.† (parallel list structure in a sentence) 3. â€Å"The film is less concerned with naval warfare than close-ups of the star’s face.† The lack of a parallel marker in the sentence makes the reader stumble, as if one has reached the top of a stairway before one expects to. (The statement appears to mean that the film is less concerned with naval warfare than close-ups of the star’s face are concerned about naval warfare, and the sentence should end with are no, wait, that’s not what it means.) The insertion of a second with to more clearly identify the juxtaposed parallel phrases â€Å"naval warfare† and â€Å"close-ups of the star’s face† guides the reader’s steps: â€Å"The film is less concerned with naval warfare than with close-ups of the star’s face.† (parallel phrase structure within a sentence) 4. â€Å"As an entrepreneur, name recognition is important and the new name is more recognizable.† The implication of this sentence is that name recognition is an entrepreneur. However, the intent is to communicate that the writer is an entrepreneur and that for that reason, it is important that the name of the person’s business stand out. To express this idea effectively, the introductory clause requires a personal pronoun; I have also inserted a comma before the beginning of the final clause to set it off more distinctly: â€Å"Because I am an entrepreneur, name recognition is important, and the new name is more recognizable.† (dangling modifier) 5. â€Å"The agency cites strong evidence linking a cold virus to the mysterious SARS that has killed seventeen people worldwide.† This sentence implies that more than one mysterious SARS exists, and the one in question is responsible for seventeen deaths. However, the writer is referring to the one and only SARS, which is mysterious and which has killed seventeen people. That reading is effected by the simple insertion of a comma and the change of the restrictive that to the nonrestrictive which: â€Å"The agency cites strong evidence linking a cold virus to the mysterious SARS, which has killed seventeen people worldwide.† (restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses) 6. â€Å"It would be something analogous to a YMCA (which stands for ‘Young Men’s Christian Association’).† This sentence indicates that a YMCA a building stands in for a spelled-out name. It is the initials, however, that substitute for the full name: â€Å"It would be something analogous to a YMCA (the initials of which stand for ‘Young Men’s Christian Association’).† (mistaking a name for an entity) 7. â€Å"Smith himself could not do the job because he had angered many supporters through his support of the reservoir project.† As (not) punctuated, this sentence implies that Smith could do the job, but not for the reason stated; another (unstated) reason explains his suitability. But what the writer means is that Smith could not do the job, and the dependent clause (the one beginning with because) explains why. A comma inserted before the clause clarifies that this latter interpretation is correct: â€Å"Smith himself could not do the job, because he had angered many supporters through his support of the reservoir project.† Better yet, invert the clauses, but trade the pronoun in the dependent clause for the person’s name: â€Å"Because Smith had angered many supporters through his support of the reservoir project, he himself could not do the job.† (punctuating before a dependent clause) Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Style category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:20 Great Opening Lines to Inspire the Start of Your Story5 Brainstorming Strategies for Writers90 Verbs Starting with â€Å"Ex-†

7 You Know What I Meant Mistakes

7 You Know What I Meant Mistakes 7 â€Å"You Know What I Meant† Mistakes 7 â€Å"You Know What I Meant† Mistakes By Mark Nichol One can often stumble through a sentence that isn’t quite right and then backtrack to make sense of it and then, reasonably confident of its meaning, slog out again and continue on one’s way. Or one can waltz right through a sentence and keep right on dancing. Which technique do you prefer your readers to follow? (Hint: What would you, as a reader, rather do?) Don’t let â€Å"You know what I meant† be your byword for stringing trains of words together avoid these almost-right constructions. (Links to related posts follow each example.) 1. â€Å"The agency acquired the parcel in 1931, but at that time in the heart of the Great Depression public acquisition of the adjacent property was not feasible even though it grove was offered at a bargain price.† A sentence is allowed one em dash, which sets off one part of the sentence from another with a sudden break to indicate an abrupt change in direction or a surprising statement, or a pair of em dashes to serve as a more emphatic replacement for two commas or a brace of parentheses. If you find yourself with three em dashes, convert a singleton to a comma or use parenthetical alternatives for the pair; two’s company, but three’s a crowd: â€Å"The agency acquired the parcel in 1931, but at that time in the heart of the Great Depression public acquisition of the adjacent property was not feasible, even though the grove was offered at a bargain price.† (em dashes). 2. â€Å"Those who opt for military service would only serve as military police, truck drivers or in homeland-security posts.† In a list of items, use one preposition to serve the entire list, or pair each item up with its own preposition; opting for something in between violates the requirement of parallel structure. My revision makes â€Å"military police or truck drivers† a single compound list item. Note, too, the inversion of only and serve (and the resulting change of meaning): â€Å"Those who opt for military service would serve only as military police or truck drivers or in homeland-security posts.† (parallel list structure in a sentence) 3. â€Å"The film is less concerned with naval warfare than close-ups of the star’s face.† The lack of a parallel marker in the sentence makes the reader stumble, as if one has reached the top of a stairway before one expects to. (The statement appears to mean that the film is less concerned with naval warfare than close-ups of the star’s face are concerned about naval warfare, and the sentence should end with are no, wait, that’s not what it means.) The insertion of a second with to more clearly identify the juxtaposed parallel phrases â€Å"naval warfare† and â€Å"close-ups of the star’s face† guides the reader’s steps: â€Å"The film is less concerned with naval warfare than with close-ups of the star’s face.† (parallel phrase structure within a sentence) 4. â€Å"As an entrepreneur, name recognition is important and the new name is more recognizable.† The implication of this sentence is that name recognition is an entrepreneur. However, the intent is to communicate that the writer is an entrepreneur and that for that reason, it is important that the name of the person’s business stand out. To express this idea effectively, the introductory clause requires a personal pronoun; I have also inserted a comma before the beginning of the final clause to set it off more distinctly: â€Å"Because I am an entrepreneur, name recognition is important, and the new name is more recognizable.† (dangling modifier) 5. â€Å"The agency cites strong evidence linking a cold virus to the mysterious SARS that has killed seventeen people worldwide.† This sentence implies that more than one mysterious SARS exists, and the one in question is responsible for seventeen deaths. However, the writer is referring to the one and only SARS, which is mysterious and which has killed seventeen people. That reading is effected by the simple insertion of a comma and the change of the restrictive that to the nonrestrictive which: â€Å"The agency cites strong evidence linking a cold virus to the mysterious SARS, which has killed seventeen people worldwide.† (restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses) 6. â€Å"It would be something analogous to a YMCA (which stands for ‘Young Men’s Christian Association’).† This sentence indicates that a YMCA a building stands in for a spelled-out name. It is the initials, however, that substitute for the full name: â€Å"It would be something analogous to a YMCA (the initials of which stand for ‘Young Men’s Christian Association’).† (mistaking a name for an entity) 7. â€Å"Smith himself could not do the job because he had angered many supporters through his support of the reservoir project.† As (not) punctuated, this sentence implies that Smith could do the job, but not for the reason stated; another (unstated) reason explains his suitability. But what the writer means is that Smith could not do the job, and the dependent clause (the one beginning with because) explains why. A comma inserted before the clause clarifies that this latter interpretation is correct: â€Å"Smith himself could not do the job, because he had angered many supporters through his support of the reservoir project.† Better yet, invert the clauses, but trade the pronoun in the dependent clause for the person’s name: â€Å"Because Smith had angered many supporters through his support of the reservoir project, he himself could not do the job.† (punctuating before a dependent clause) Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Style category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:20 Great Opening Lines to Inspire the Start of Your Story5 Brainstorming Strategies for Writers90 Verbs Starting with â€Å"Ex-†