You've got to be kidding me. After three failed attempts, had they forced another swallow test and her body aspirated the liquid, they'd face a possible malpractice suit.
You make my point for me. She failed the tests not because there was zero probability of success, but because there was non-zero probability of harmful failure. That she failed the tests three times does not in any way imply that there would have been a zero percent chance of her taking food by mouth. Rather that, as long as safer methods of feeding were available, oral feeding wasn't worth the risk.
You've got to be kidding me. After three failed attempts, had they forced another swallow test and her body aspirated the liquid, they'd face a possible malpractice suit.
Have you seen the official results of her swallowing tests? If you have, I'd like a link if you have it.
I think his point is that without any nutrition or hydration as ordered by Judge Greer, at this point, without eating her probability of death is 100%.
I really do not understand the inability for everyone to understand this basic point:
If we do not provide her with any source of nutrition, she WILL absolutely die, vs. if we take out her feeding tube (in accordance with the state law) and allow her to try and survive by feeding her orally, she will in all likelihood die.
If you were playing Russian roulette, would you rather play with a revolver with no empty chambers or with one empty chamber and take your chances?