I don't *always* consider a feeding tube
life support either. I'm not sure it is in this particular case.,
particularly if she can learn to eat on her own as the parents
maintain. But if the feeding tube is the only thing keeping a person alive
then it could be considered life support, in fact in most legal jurisdictions it
is considered heroic measures if the patient is terminal.
As for the judge in Sept his hands
were tied by the law. He can't break the law for compassion. There
was a legal way to do what they wanted and the parents didn't do it. From
what I read the judge went out of his way to tell them how to properly do it so
it would be legal and they didn't. There was only so much he could
do.
From what I've seen most people period are
trying to save her, across all walks of life not just pro-life folks. What
I've proposed in this message is a way to accomplish that in a manner that would
be best for her.
Charles Mims
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Harder
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:36 PM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] a possibility in the euthanasia case
I don't consider the feeding tube life support...
It is just the way that this mentally disabled person eats.
A compassionate judge would weigh the big picture when
deciding how to properly repramand the family for end around tactics.
A life is at stake.
Can I assume that most "pro-life" advocates are trying to save her?
On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 08:07 PM, Charles wrote:
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
http://www.the-sandbox.org
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
