Actually I just thought of this, someone had mentioned it before. All they have to do is quit feeding Terri, I don't see anything in the statute saying that it is necessary to remove the tube. I wonder if Felos is up to something, iow setting a new precedent with Terri's case to end the insertion of feeding tubes. I know this thought is way out there, but why is it necessary to remove the tube? It isn't.
no they couldn't. They could not bring about her death by removing the feeding tube without her permission and since she didn't sign a living will, her HINO had to convince a judge that she expressed a desire not be kept alive by artificial means. BUT, the feeding tube was not considered extraordinary means back then...it was considered part of normal care so they passed that law so they could kill her.
They did remove it last time. I believe they took her to the hospital and had it removed. If they do that again, they may have plans not to bring her back to the hospice where the vigil and freepers are at. I don't trust the husband, lawyer, judge or the hospice. Lord only knows what's up their sleeves this time around.
The tube wasn't removed the first time, I was told, only capped off. The 2nd time, it was removed and had to be reinserted. I can't remember who told me that.
No. I thought of that. It isn't necessary to remove the tube.