I thought we could discuss a disagreement, but evidently not. I'm sorry if it bothers you exnavychick.
However, just as I'm qualified to write a "Do not resuscitate, comfort care only" order on a chart, I'm qualified to discern between euthanasia and allowing to die.
The deliberate action of forbidding oral hydration after forbidding tube feedings is an act to intentionally cause, rather than allow, the death of the one deprived. Whereas, if oral hydration had been allowed, but not tolerated or the amounts tolerated are not sufficient, then the patient dies of his or her disease. I have never heard of such a thing. My goodness, what difference could it have made, other than the sort of comfort for Terri and those around her that was afforded by her morphine drip?
Greer should be called to answer for it, by the appropriate authorities.
Hey, no skin off my teeth. I just hate to see it, is all. Ah well.
Have a good one, folks.
Judge Greer did NOT forbid oral hydration.
A motion was presented to him to allow an experimental procedure regarding oral hydration. That motion was denied because of that.
Now, how is this Judge Greer's fault? He didn't write the motion -- he simply ruled on it.
You know that Terri was unable to swallow. Yet you insist that those involved at least "go through the motions" so you can sleep better telling yourself "they tried".
All well and good to ask for this, just as those who asked that flowers be placed in her room. But when it's not done, to then call the judge a murderer, well, that's over the top.