Replies

About the feeding tube:

Heres' the kicker. Several doctors and therapists have suggested that she may be able to swallow normally. The court has prohibited them from trying this. They can't even try. They also can't attempt any occupational or physical therapy. It's just stupid and sick what this lawyer has done to her.

I know that Mr. Schiavo has tried to ban Terri's mother and family and priest from seeing her.

But, I don't know how a court could prevent doctors from ordering therapy, speach therapy (which is often actually swallowing therapy) and most especially oral nutrition.

I went to the website and looked at the videos (unfortunately there are no dates on what I saw). They might be disturbing to some, but Terri was definitely not in a "Permanent vegetative state" at the time of the filming. I can't say from the video whether she is "tracking" the balloon, but she is alert to some extent. She is not lying there asleep or in a coma.

My own "Advance directive" asks that I not have a feeding tube if I can't argue and read and fuss at people (almost literally - that's what I wrote). It also says that if someone does begin intervention, I'd want it removed, to be taken home, made comfortable while I die. But, that's my own preference, based largely on my need to control and my belief that I've got something to look forward to after death. I went out of my way to write it and to make sure that my mother, husband, and adult children understand it.( Old joke between my husband and I - He'd prefer that I cook and push the feedings for him, myself. But, I've promised to find a nice nursing home for my husband where he can get his tube feedings - and jokingly promise to visit at least once a month, since that's how often I'd visit the other patients in the nursing home.)

The point of all this is not to support withdrawal of feedings. It's to point out that different people have different views on life, end of life, and life after life. The default position - the one we should assume - is that the person would want to continue living, since as long as there is life, changes can be made. If someone is killed or deliberately allowed to die, there is no turning back.

I do not understand the rationale behind any doctor saying that the woman in the video is in a "permanent vegetative state."

There is no public interest in letting Terri die. Even the most die-hard objectivist should agree that, short of legal evidence that Terri did not want to live, no one else has the right to interfere in such a way as to speed her death. She is "supporting" herself, since there's insurance money. And the State would have the "right" to expect her husband to do so if there weren't - stuff happens in life that causes responsibilities. Has anyone seen a marriage that did not include the vow "in sickness and in health" or something to that effect? But, Terri's mother would be glad to take over her care. Why shouldn't she be allowed to do so?

Removing the tube is an act of medical intervention intended to starve Terri. It is unethical for any doctor to do that, even if Terri were actually unresponsive or costing someone a ton of money. (It is ethical to not act, but not something I'd want to do as a doctor.)
The only reason to pull the tube is to kill.