ANOTHER crucial concept someone made is that Terri's g tube does not have to be "pulled" -- which is unnecessary surgery (w/possibility of infection, discomfort, mental anguish, etc). >> All they have to do is simply not pour her nutrition into the tube! <<
"Pulling the tube" is superfluous, NOT something being done "in Terri's best interest".
Clearly this is all about hype, public opinion, public perception. The public is actively encouraged to confuse her feeding tube with a ventilator.
gotta go, so sorry.
Here is the link to that post from supercat -- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333205/posts?page=2373#2373:
Latest entry in my blog
Why remove a feeding tube anyway If a patient is on a ventilator and it is desired to discontinue artificial ventilation, there are reasons to physically remove the ventilator. It's bulky, useless (once its function is discontinued), and its continued presence could interfere with natural breathing.
A gastrostomic tube, however, is not a piece of external equipment to which a patient is connected. Nor does it interfere with "normal" eating. Instead, a g-tube is just a small tube that connects the stomach to the abdominal wall. A second mouth, basically. A funnel or food bag can be connected to it at feeding time, but otherwise it just sits there. Unlike a big bulky ventilator, or even an IV, a gastrosomic tube does not interfere with patient mobility nor with anything else a patient might want to do.
Even if a patient is in end-stage cancer and doesn't want to be fed, a gastrostomic tube cannot not by itself force unwanted food into the patient. If it's necessary to stop feeding a patient, a caregiver can simply decline to put any more food through the tube.
To be sure, there are sometimes good reasons to remove a g-tube:
Discontinuing food and water for a terminal hydration for a terminal patient, however, is not a good reason for removing a g-tube. The tube's continued presence doesn't hurt the patient, and removing the feeding tube represents an unnecessary surgery with no therapeutic benefit.
- The tube becomes clogged or infected; in this case, normal protocol would be to remove the old one and install a new one.
- The patient regains sufficient ability to take food by mouth that there is no anticipated future need for the feeding tube and its continued presence would do naught but create a risk of future infection.
Why, then, are feeding tubes removed from terminal or supposedly-terminal patients?
Because, to the uninitiated, "removing a feeding tube" sounds much more like letting nature take its course than does "stopping feeding the patient".
Other posts to that part of the thread also helpful.
Unnecessary "surgery?"
When my daughter had a feeding tube, it accidentally came out from time to time if it got caught up between her body and the bed rail as we leaned over it to put her back in bed. The tube came out pretty easily---it was stethoscope-type rubber and very flexible at the end inside the body. I know there are others with firmer ends, though.
The first two times it happened, we had to go to the emergency room to have it reinserted, not because it was so technical to put back in, but because it required a "Grooved Director" to lubricate, twist and poke it back through the skin. After having it happen those two times and seeing how EASY it was to reinsert, we asked the ER where we could get one and how much they cost.
IIRC, the ER bills would be something like $200 just to walk in the door. The "Grooved Director" cost something like $2. Needless to say, we asked to borrow the one at the hospital the next time (because it was MORE stressful and dangerous for her just to take her outside in cold or rainy weather). We immediately bought TWO at a medical supply: one for home and one for her diaper bag.