Ignorant
Gelisgesti wrote:I repeat, if she were physically capable of oral feeding ....why the feeding tube for 15 years?
What is more, why would a judge interfere with normal intake of food and drink.
I have to go back and find the link to your post on ignorance. Why haven't you read up on the case? Why haven't you clicked on the links provided and read the court documents? Why do you pretend not to understand a simple concept? The Schindlers asked for permission to provide their daughter with the normal intake of food and water, and the judge denied their request.
Terri was capable of oral feeding. Her former nurses testified that they used to give her both liquid and pudding by mouth until Michael ordered them to stop.
Additionally, people like Terri and other disabled persons eat very slowly and need a lot of assistance from their caregivers. How many hospitals, nursing homes, or hospices can spare a worker to spend all that time feeding just one patient? And if the time can't be spared, how can the caregivers ensure that the patient is getting enough nutrition and hydration to sustain his/her needs? It's not that difficult to understand why a feeding tube is used.
The problem, however, if you rely solely on the feeding tube, the patient loses the capacity to swallow. Retraining becomes necessary.
Because Schiavo could swallow her own saliva, more than two dozen neurologists and speech therapists filed affidavits in her case stating that she should be given the chance to relearn how to be fed by spoon before her gastric tube was removed.
THE JUDGE DENIED THE MOTION to feed Terri by mouth. No food or drop of water was allowed to pass her lips. And then you ask why would a judge interfere with normal intake of food and drink? Because the whole point of removing the feeding tube was to MAKE HER DEAD. If she was allowed to have food and water by mouth . . . she would live.
Do you get it now? This was not about honoring Terri's alleged wishes with respect to consenting to or refusing medical treatment . . . this entire case was about CAUSING HER DEATH.
Now go back to the Florida Statute at issue with respect to Health Care Advance Directives:
Quote:
765.101 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
765.102 Legislative findings and intent.--
(1) The Legislature finds that every competent adult has the fundamental right of self-determination regarding decisions pertaining to his or her own health, including the right to choose or refuse medical treatment. This right is subject to certain interests of society, such as the protection of human life and the preservation of ethical standards in the medical profession.
This is not a "right to die" statute. This statute concerns an individuals right to 1) choose medical treatment; or 2) refuse medical treatment.
An individual may execute an advance directive instructing the doctors to withdraw life-prolonging treatment including "artificially provided" sustenance and hydration. BUT NOTHING in the statute authorizes a guardian, proxy, or judge to order that no food or water pass her lips. She should have been allowed "naturally provided" sustenance and hydration through her mouth.
Yet, the judge had armed guards posted at her door and around the hospice to ensure that no food or water passed her lips. Approximately 50 people were arrested for trying to bring her water. This case was not about removing artificial feeding . . . this was about making her DEAD.
