Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt
Even if Mae's advance directive specified nourishment (unless she was PVS or comatose and had no chance of recovery), a doctor in the hospital certified her as terminal, i.e., no chance of recovery, so withholding of nourishment is legal.

But did a doctor so certify? The judge ordered a 3 doctor review, and I don't know where that stands. Also, if all nourishment had been cut off on the 28th, granny is in her 12th day. I'm just not sure yet that that is the case.

512 posted on 04/09/2005 7:58:07 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies ]


To: MACVSOG68
But did a doctor so certify? The judge ordered a 3 doctor review, and I don't know where that stands. Also, if all nourishment had been cut off on the 28th, granny is in her 12th day. I'm just not sure yet that that is the case.

My uninformed belief is thatthe 3 doctor panel is not charged with making a conclusion of "terminal." I think they are charged with choosing a course of treatment.

The determination of terminal has already been certified, by another doctor. Otherwise the patient would not be in hospice. And the attorney for hospice is reported to have said that if Mae is intubated, she must be removed from hospice. I.e., if she is fed, she is not certifiable as certainly dead withing 6 months.

If and when the guardian and hospital/doctor decide to schedule natural death by dehydration, the patient is legally terminal.

515 posted on 04/09/2005 8:07:03 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson