[E Rocc]

The statutes in 1999 were amended to allow refusal of artificial food and hydration based upon "clear and compelling evidence". But you haven't cited me any statute to allow the denial of oral food and hydration.

Perhaps the clear medical view that this would cause nothing but choking.

-Eric

[ARCADIA]

Perhaps the clear medical view that this would cause nothing but choking.

The medical record on this case is as clear as mud. What "clear" medical view, which doctor testified to that and which medical journal reviewed that conclusion?

It is laughable that someone who is putting his wife to death by starvation is worried about choking risks.

[supercat]

Perhaps the clear medical view that this would cause nothing but choking.

Even if there were a 99% chance that it would cause choking, and a 0.5% chance that Terri would be able to receive nutrition and hydration orally, what legitimate rationale would there be for denying the attempt under the circumstances?