The governor could issue an executive order requiring that Terri
be taught (rehabilitated) to eat by her self *before* removing the feeding
tube. <That would require putting it back in of
course>
The court could order the same (and probably should
have).
The husband likewise could present this as a compromise position
to the woman's family.
The family asked for this in September, but because they did an
end run around the court it was denied. The judge that denied it
explicitly said he would have approved it if they had done it in a legal manner,
but because they didn't he had to deny it.
It
could still be done.
Now this would have the effect of proving one side right or
wrong. If she is capable of learning to eat on her own it would prove she
is not in a vegetative state. If she is unable to learn to do this, then
it would prove that the feeding tube is life support.
This would be an option that I could support
wholeheartedly.
The question is, is either side willing to step back and end this
in an adult fashion?
I'm not really in favor of starving her to death. I *am* in
favor of allowing the next of kin to make decisions (under the
applicable laws of the state) concerning life support.
I'd possibly be in favor of making legislation striking feeding
tubes from the definition of life support if it could be crafted in a way that
would keep someone from being able to be kept indefinitely against their will in
a vegetative state.
Charles Mims
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
