If a person appears generally vegetative, but has enough swallowing ability to take care of their own saliva without drooling, what would be the harm in seeing whether the patient could take on a sufficient quantity of concentrated nourishment (in addition to the saliva) without choking?
Given the alternative of 100% certain death by dehydration, who would have been harmed by allowing the parents to attempt feeding with either a nineteenth-century invalid feeder or a medieval (if not earlier) spoon?
As I have posted before, or at least thought I had, that would be preferable, of course.
The problem is, though, that the REASON Terri Schiavo had a feeding tube was because she was UNABLE to chew and swallow food due to her diminished brain activity and ability. The parents hoped physical therapy would cure this disability. The courts found that their hope was unrealistic, due to the neuorological limitations (or lack) of their daughter's brain.
I am all for seeing if the ability to be fed is appropriate.
When it is NOT appropriate, what then?
Let the person choke on the food to death?