Removal of Feeding Tube (pray)

[BUDDY]

We had a case here, in the last month or so where the courts ruled that the doctors' recommendations that a baby of ten months not be rescusitated against the parent's wishes.

Guys, please, please, understand that this is no where near the case for Terri. She is living and breathing and no where near death. She just can't feed herself and has brain damage. There are thousands of cases like hers all over this country. We have now set a presidence where we can stop taking care of those who can't care for themselves and starve them to death. This is not a case of whether to rescusitate or not.

[Jaymes]

She isn't going to feel any pain as she starves to death. Her brain is already surrounded by a hypotonic solution, and she can't feel any pain.

Think about it. How would you like to be unable to really live life for years on end? Would you want to keep living on the off chance you might by some miracle get up and walk, or would you want to just end it? If you want to answer 'yes,' try going and laying perfectly still for a few hours, and think about how that would be for years.

[angellous_evangellous]

This situation is beyond my judgement, but starving to death medically is not really comparable to starving to death being fully aware. The medical feeding tube is an entirely different sensation than struggling with hunger. The feeding tube does not place food in one's belly removing the pain of hunger, but rather is simply water and basic nutrients injected into the bloodstream. She will not feel the pain of starvation.

[BUDDY]

I was in Somalia quite a while back, and there were thousands of starving people, mostly women and children. It is so sad. I left a piece of my soul over there I think.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by EEWRED

Guys, please, please, understand that this is no where near the case for Terri. She is living and breathing and no where near death. She just can't feed herself and has brain damage. There are thousands of cases like hers all over this country. We have now set a presidence where we can stop taking care of those who can't care for themselves and starve them to death. This is not a case of whether to rescusitate or not.

No where near death is not really an appropraite way to approach the situation. If her doctors did not affix the feeding tubes, she would already be dead. She is in hospice care, which means that she is fatally sick and expected to die soon.

EDIT: This is also not the first case of the removal of feeding tubes, and we do have precedence for the practice all over the United States and elsewhere. This became a legal issue only because of Terri's parents. Had the parents and husband been unified, there would have been no legal issue at all.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by Saw11_2000

I also think that her husband is a piece of $#*( trying to continue his affair like you said, but regardless of that, I'd rather die.

<sigh> He could have continued his relationship with this other woman with Terry still on the feeding tube. It doesn't wash as a reason for his fight to remove it.

[BUDDY]

I can't believe what I am reading here. You guys actually think that it is alright for this womans piece of crap husband to have her killed because she is an inconvenience to his extramarital affair? She is ALIVE. It may not be the life that you or I would prefer, but it is still life. What gives us the right to decide who lives and who dies? Who empowered us to make that decision? Who do we think we are? Does this mean we can now indiscriminately go from hospital to hospital, pulling feeding tubes because, "I wouldn't want to live like this." What kind of reasoning is that? I am just amazed that anyone would agree with this decision. Boggles my mind.

[Saw11_2000]

Originally Posted by EEWRED

Guys, please, please, understand that this is no where near the case for Terri. She is living and breathing and no where near death. She just can't feed herself and has brain damage. There are thousands of cases like hers all over this country. We have now set a presidence where we can stop taking care of those who can't care for themselves and starve them to death. This is not a case of whether to rescusitate or not.

Michael Schiavo says his wife told him she would not want to be kept alive artificially. Her parents dispute that, saying she could get better and that their daughter has laughed, cried, smiled and responded to their voices. Court-appointed physicians testified her brain damage was so severe that there was no hope she would ever have any cognitive abilities.

I use that as my justification for that, not because Mike says she wouldn't, but because the doctors say she has no hope.

<sigh> He could have continued his relationship with this other woman with Terry still on the feeding tube. It doesn't wash as a reason for his fight to remove it.

I never said it was a reason. I personally would rather have died if I was in that situation if my spouse said keep him alive or kill him. I doubt anyone would want to live that way.

She isn't going to feel any pain as she starves to death. Her brain is already surrounded by a hypotonic solution, and she can't feel any pain.

Think about it. How would you like to be unable to really live life for years on end? Would you want to keep living on the off chance you might by some miracle get up and walk, or would you want to just end it? If you want to answer 'yes,' try going and laying perfectly still for a few hours, and think about how that would be for years.

Nice point.