If there is a risk that a patient might choke given oral food and hydration, doctors will prescribe a feeding tube. For patients with difficulty swallowing, feeding tubes are more convenient than oral feeding for patient and staff alike. Because feeding tubes are safer and more convenient than oral feeding, doctors are apt to prescribe them even when they are not absolutely necessary.
The fair way to resolve the dispute would have been to remove the G-tube but allow Terri's parents to either attempt to give Terri water and orally or to hire a doctor to so. Even if such attempts had an 80% chance of fatal complications and a 1% chance of success, that would still improve Terri's odds of survival by 1%. If it doesn't work, nobody is harmed by the attempt, but Terri's family gets to feel better for the attempt. And if it does work, it would show that Terri was able to take food orally and thus that starving/dehydrating her would not have been legal.
The only reasons I can see for refusing such efforts are (1) Michael hated Terri's family and wanted them to suffer [a possible reason, but not a legitimate one], or (2) Michael was afraid that such efforts might succeed [another possible reason, but again not a legitimate one]. Care to offer any legitimate reasons?
The only reasons I can see for refusing such efforts are (1) Michael hated Terri's family and wanted them to suffer [a possible reason, but not a legitimate one], or (2) Michael was afraid that such efforts might succeed [another possible reason, but again not a legitimate one]. Care to offer any legitimate reasons?
The swallowing tests were done in 1991, 1992 and 1993, and from the GAL's report that was a time when there was no disagreement between the Schindler's and Michael Schiavo. So it would appear it was neither reason (unless someone can provide contrary evidence). You'd have to ask her doctors at the time, but since she failed three swallowing tests, I assume they thought that the risk of aspiration was held to be very high.