You haven't answered my question. Are you suggesting that Terri was capable of voluntarily swallowing enough nutrition to keep her alive?
If not, then please explain why this is an issue with you, and why you are constantly bringing it up (other than to annoy me).
"What is your take on the medical intervention to remove the tube and the insertion of an IV for a morphine drip?"
It was a legal intervention to remove the feeding tube, based on the patient's previous statements not to want to live that way. The morphine drip was unnecessary, and it was a mistake to give in to the public pressure to start one.
"She died because of deliberate acts to deny nutrition by a feeding tube ..."
As per her request. She has a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment.
"Greer forbade "Natural Means."
As I said before, I'm getting sick and tired of this bull$hit from you. If you can prove to me that Terri could have handled enough nutrition, orally, to keep her alive, then I'll admit you have a point. Without that, you're merely posing a hypothetical.
Click on my freeper name. I'm not a "he," and have a background in ethics, as well as Family Medicine and hospice work.
This is not hypothetical. It is the basis for all euthanasia vs. "letting nature take its course."
I am uncomfortable with the concept of substituted judgment(especially in this case), but have not argued that point in this thread.
The morphine drip and the gratuitous trip to the hospital to remove the tube were unethical, if the actual disease were the cause of Terri Schiavo's death. If she had been dying because of her disease, *or* if she were truly without consciousness or any reaction to her circumstances neither was needed. Both were artificial. Greer had ruled that no other medical interventions would be allowed. He could have just as well ordered that the tube be clamped and never used again.
These were the symbolic actions. And, they were meant to ensure her death.
But, the immediate and most sure cause of death was the March 8th order forbidding natural means of hydration and nutrition.
There was a chance - no matter how slim - that Terri could take enough hydration to keep her alive, had she been offered it. The certain, the unavoidable end of that order was her death within a given time period.
No one ever said that Terri said she would never want anyone to feed her, or give her a bit of ice chips or a sip of cool water.
The offering of hydration and nutrition by natural means is outside the power of legitimate law, which is meant to preserve the right to life, liberty and happiness - and in that order.
The doctrine of non-maleficence and the corollary Double Effect or of Unintended Effect is an old, respected scale on which to weigh end of life treatment. Greer chose to kill rather than treat Terri's life as an end in herself. He had the legal right to order that the artificial and medical treatments not be used. There was no legal right to forbid natural means of hydration, any more than he had the right to forbid natural means of respiration.
Think of it this way: if she had been on a ventilator, greer could have legally ordered the machine turned off and the tubing removed. He could not place Terri in a room with no oxygen or place a plastic bag over her head.