So, even if there were a significant probability of aspiration, what would be the purpose of forbidding the attempt unless one did not want the person to survive if they happened to be able to take liquid by mouth? Since it is illegal to fatally dehydrate someone who would be able to survive on oral hydration, what legitimate basis is there for denying the attempt even if the probability of success were only 1%?
[Note that oral feeding/hydration would be clearly contraindicated if there were a 5% chance of aspiration, even if there were a 90% chance of success; therefore, the fact that swallowing tests were 'unsuccessful' does not mean swallowing wouldn't be possible--merely that it would be less safe that g-tube feeding]
The order against oral feeding/hydration does seem to me to be probably illegal. On that one I think Greer was probably subject to reversal. But I don't think anyone thought that would actually sustain her life, despite all the chat about it. If that is not the case, that was another missed opportunity.
Can we then put to rest the lie that she received no such tests?