> I want to be allowed to die but DO NOT starve me to death.
That brings up something that always bugged me about the Schiavo case.
A lot is/was made about removing the feeding and hydration equipment, and how awful Ms Schiavo's death must've been.
But... rather than working to pass something very very close to an unconstitutional bill of attainder in Congress, why didn't the protesters just go to the Florida legislature and have feeding tubes taken off the default list of "life support equipment"?
THAT is a very good question.
The term I remember hearing in the media was "extraordinary measures." If they could have passed a stupid one line law in the FL legislature, perhaps...
I do not know that feeding tubes are so defined. Do you know that?
Because the "Republican" in the legislature who made the law refused to let anyone try to "roll back his legacy".
But... rather than working to pass something very very close to an unconstitutional bill of attainder in Congress, why didn't the protesters just go to the Florida legislature and have feeding tubes taken off the default list of "life support equipment"?
I can speculate - because if it's "ordinary care" and not "life support" you have just taken a step that may mean EVERYONE get a feeding tube in ANY situation where they can't take nutrition any other way. I don't know about you, but if one my siblings wanted to put a feeding tube in my mother when she was dying of cancer, I would have been very upset. I would have fought it as she never wanted that. Medically, a feeding tube is not "ordinary" care. It is not the equivalent of a baby bottle or a spoon.