Replies

From all I have read, he did not order the *medical staff* not to give her anything by mouth. I know they are usung moistening swabs. (By the way, so far, no one I've seen can find any court doc wherein he made the "nobody feed that girl" comment reported by worldnet daily. And they looked upon being challenged to do so by posters at the st pete forum using it. If you find it, I'd love to see it.)

.

But as I wrote last night:

That is a real sticking point with me, too.

It can't be right to not allow an obviously thirsty and hungry person to at least *try* to eat or drink.

I know the reason is because she is legally considered PVS. Plus, her having failed all tests to swallow in the first three years (the most critical time period, and while she was being given speech and "swallow" therapy), they believe it would lead to one of two things:

1. She aspirates and gets pneumonia (not good if they wind up putting the tube back in)

2. She is able to ingest just enough to make her starvation and dehydration last a very long time.

But still... it just seems wrong morally and legally to use those possibilities as a reason to deny even giving her a chance.

I *really* need to go lie down. Back in a bit.

From all I have read, he did not order the *medical staff* not to give her anything by mouth. I know they are usung moistening swabs.

Is the use of moistening swabs the same as "giving something by mouth," medically speaking?