[gooleyman]

What would you think of amending such a section to provide that food may only be denied to patients with a prognosis of 48 hours or less to live, and water to those with 24 hours or less.

-----

I'd be totally against that, Supercat. Prognoses can be bought so easliy, as in Terri's case. If a person isn't going to live any more than 48 hours, what's the problem with feeding them for that last period of life.

My Grandmother-in-law was given just 6 months to live. You know what? She lived another 40 (forty) years (as in YEARS). There was no malice involved on her doctors part. He was just plain wrong. She wasn't on any life support, but suppose she had simply given up and jumped off a bridge or something. She would have missed out on seeing her kids and grandkids grow up.

Bottom Line: NO ONE knows how long anyone has on this earth unless he or she plans to kill that person at a time certain. Sound familiar?

[supercat]

I'd be totally against that, Supercat. Prognoses can be bought so easliy, as in Terri's case. If a person isn't going to live any more than 48 hours, what's the problem with feeding them for that last period of life.

Among other things, it's common for people dying of cancer to refuse food, and absent such a provision a doctor might feel compelled to force-feed them.

Besides, if the doctor's prognosis is wrong and the person survives more than 24 hours, well then stop dehydrating them. Perhaps the exact duration should be shorter, I don't know, but the idea is that it be long enough that someone who doesn't want to be bothered with a stomach tube, IV, or whatnot in their last moments won't have to be, but short enough that in the event of misdiagnosis the brief lack of food or hydration would not be appreciably harmful.