[Pulling feding tubes happens around 1000 timer per day in hospitals and nursing homes according to USA Today. They pulled this from medical records.
There has also been a bunch of post by Freepers on this is how their parents went.]
Does the article say in how many of those cases (sounds like too high of a number to me) an advanced directive was available?
Whether or not Terri wanted a feeding tube removed is still a huge question for me. i know, some of you will say the courts agreed that is was, but there are conflicting statements to those entered by MS, his brother and his brother's wife. There is even a statement from a nurse who stated that MS told her he had no idea what Terri would have wanted.
Court-ordered removal of a feeding tube seems wrong in this case. There's just too much doubt about her wishes to suit me.
> There is even a statement from a nurse who stated that MS told her he had no idea what Terri would have wanted.
And there are two other powerful items of proof greater than HINO's (and his brother's and a sister-in-law's) hearsay testimony that Terri casually commented about not wishing to continue being maintained artificially.
1. HINO's own slip-up on Friday, 3/18 during his most recent sojourn on the LKL program.
We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...
from: ( http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html )
2. The trial testimony of Terri's best HS girlfriend. They had a discussion after watching the Karen Quinlan movie. Her friend said Terri's opinion was totally pro-life and she recalled/quoted Terri saying "Where there's life, there's hope."
This an unbelievable, and adequately documented, case of fraud on the court. I am and have been absolutely beside myself that no one has seen fit to orally state or file a complaint about this issue in any of the myriad petitioned courts. Fraud on a (trial) court is a charge that can be brought up at any court level, bring any proceeding to a halt for examination of the issue and potential judgement reversal. Such a charge focuses the attention on the party charged with such fraud, and away from the judge (who will be perceived as having been innocently duped).