Either she could swallow or she could not. Reflexive or not - it is a contraindication to the diagnosis of PVS. She did not drool, she only had one pneumonia in the last few years (and survived that without antibiotics) and she was not suctioned by the hospice nurses.
There was a court order among the many that forbade, in the judge's words "natural means." Greer declared any such action to be an "experimental procedure." Here is the order found here on FR by a simple google search:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/1372022/posts?page=11#11
""Greer's ruling:
Order
This cause came before the Court for hearing on March 7, 2005 on Respondents’ Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means after the assisted nutrition and hydration are discontinued. The Court heard the argument of Daniel Gibbs, for the Respondents and of George Felos, for the Petitioner.
Having also reviewed portions of declarations or affidavits of several doctors, which were submitted to the Court by Respondents, it has become clear that the motion is part and parcel of the Respondents’ FLa. R. Civ. P Rule 1.540(b)(5) motion on medical evaluations. The same declarations are being used for both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the 1.540(b)(5) motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure. The Court reasons that if the 1.540(b)(5) motion is granted, there is no need for this motion. If the 1.540(b)(5) motion is denied, the Court should not do indirectly what is has not done directly.
It is therefore
Ordered and adjudged that the Respondents’ Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED.""
The swallowing of saliva is not quite as simple as you describe it. That is why babies drool and why those in minimally conscious states or altered conscious states and even those who are mentally competent may choke on or aspirate their own saliva.
If the person is terminal and unable to tolerate liquids by mouth, and the court has ruled that he or she is not to recieve any life support or tube feedings, what is the logic in denying communion or forbidding a brother or mother the solace (for them) of placing ice chips on a parched tongue? These are "comfort" measures. I cannot imagine any hospice nurse I know going along with this decree. What would be the logic in a Court declaring that such an act is wrong?
The only thing that could have been wrong would be, as in the case of denying Dr. Cheshire or any other neurologist that the Governor or DCF sent in to examine Terri, that the judge could not bear to be proven wrong. He could not allow Terri to live. So he invented the proposition that oral hydration was "experimental" or "medical evaluation" and forbade it.
It is comforting for all of us though to know how well we are all doing with this experimental technique of nutrition and hydration by mouth. Most people I know have survived this experimentation since birth. /sarcasm