Posted on 05/20/2017 2:17:45 PM PDT by DFG
Nothing new. People in this country are dehydrated every day.
FWIW, I think this is less about how it’s done than who makes the decision.
Meanwhile, per OR law, a patient with early Alzheimers may still be allowed behind the wheel. Just something to keep in mind while reading the bill.
(4)(a) In adopting the form of an advance directive under this section, the committee shall use plain language, such as “tube feeding” and “life support.”
(b) As used in this subsection:
(A) “Life support” means life-sustaining procedures.
(B) “Tube feeding” means artificially administered nutrition and hydration.
Is is the broad definition of tube feeding to include all artificially administered nutrition and hydration that opens the door.
The person filling out the form would naturally assume that "tube feeding" means "feeding through a tube", which usually occurs with unconscious patients who cannot swallow. But there are a lot of forms of artificially administered nutrition and hydration that to not involve what would typically understood as "tube feeding", including spoon feeding of a conscious patient who is incapable of feeding himself.
So the person who opts out of tube feeding also opts out of spoon feeding, because of the broad definition. Furthermore, if spoon feeding is considered a medical intervention, instead of routine and ordinary care, it makes it much easier to withhold by court order, even without an advance directive.
So, there it is, quoted directly from the bill, in black and white. Would you care, at this time, to repeat how this is not in the bill?
Best to read the bill ....
---------------------------------
(b) “Artificially administered nutrition and hydration” does not include the usual and typical provision of nutrition and hydration, such as the provision of nutrition and hydration by cup, hand, bottle, drinking straw or eating utensil.
Ah, I see my error. I assumed that the broad definition was complete in itself, and I did not see the limitation included in the previous section.
My mistake.
It appears that the article is blowing smoke. The treatment they are concerned about is specifically excluded, and thus remains ordinary care, as you point out.
Perhaps the person who wrote the article made the same mistake I did.
Your response is appreciated!
PS. Another reminder, as if one was necessary, that getting snarky is almost always a bad decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.